Pay attention at any Aussie barbecue over Summer and you will hear that we think of ourselves as easy-going, egalitarian, and always ready to pass the hat when someone’s doing it tough. Yet every few months a headline pops up asking whether we are becoming meaner, more self-absorbed, less willing to give. So which is it? Is Aussie philanthropy: sun-drenched generosity or hidden stinginess?

The truth is more interesting, and far more hopeful, than either cliché. Recent data shows that Australians are still giving billions, but the way we give is changing, and fast. Behind the doom-and-gloom about declining donation rates is a quiet revolution in how generosity is structured, managed, and sustained over time.

Are Australians really less generous?

If you only skim the headlines, you might think the answer is yes. Tax-deductible giving as a share of income has fallen from earlier peaks, and fewer people are claiming donations on their returns. Media coverage often seizes on these figures as evidence of waning generosity, especially in the wake of rising living costs and mortgage stress.

But look a little closer and a different story emerges. Analyses of giving patterns show that while the proportion of people donating has dipped, the total dollars given remain substantial, with many donors actually giving more per person than before. At the same time, people are increasingly giving outside the traditional “drop a gold coin and get a sausage” model, through workplace giving, online appeals, bequests, and, crucially, structured giving vehicles.

In other words, Australians may be giving differently, not necessarily less. Measuring generosity only by one metric, like tax claims, is a bit like judging someone’s fitness by how many sit-ups they log on an app, while ignoring the half-marathons and ocean swims.

The charity paradox: fewer givers, bigger gifts

Researchers and sector leaders describe a “concentration” of giving: a smaller share of the population is responsible for a larger share of total donations. Economically, that looks efficient. Socially, it can feel risky. If generosity becomes too dependent on a relatively narrow cohort of affluent donors, the sector becomes more vulnerable to market shocks and changing preferences.

Yet there is upside. Larger, more deliberate gifts tend to be planned, multi-year, and linked to specific outcomes. This is good news for charities that want to invest in programs, not just survive on one-off appeals. It is also good news for donors who want to see real impact rather than scattergun feel-good moments.

Talkback radio might lament that “people don’t give like they used to,” but the reality is that modern generosity increasingly looks like a portfolio, not a spare-change jar. That shift brings with it a powerful tool: structured giving.

Enter structured giving

Nothing kills the vibe at a dinner party faster than someone bringing up tax law. Yet, for financial advisers, lawyers and accountants, the rise of structured giving funds such as Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) and Public Ancillary Funds (PuAFs) is changing the conversation about philanthropy.

A PAF is essentially a charitable trust set up and funded by an individual, family, or business, with a legal requirement to distribute a minimum proportion of its assets to eligible charities each year. A PuAF pools funds from multiple donors into a common structure, often operating like a “charitable investment fund” in which donors recommend how grants are directed.

Australian Philanthropic Services (APS) sets up about a third of new PAFs each year and the APS Foundation is Australia’s fastest growing and most generous PuAF amongst it peers. We see strong growth in both PAFs and PuAFs, with thousands of structured funds now in place and billions of dollars under management. This capital must, by design, flow into the charitable sector over time, creating a pipeline of future giving that is locked in, rather than merely hoped for.

If the old model of giving is the impulse tap-and-go donation bucket, structured giving is the long-term investment fund: patient, planned, and protected by rules that keep it pointed toward the public good.

Why structured giving works for donors

For donors, especially high-net-worth individuals and families, structured giving offers several very practical advantages:

• Clarity and control: Donors can articulate a giving strategy around causes they care about, set annual distribution targets, and track outcomes over time. This turns philanthropy from a series of disconnected gestures into a coherent narrative.
• Tax efficiency without guilt: Giving through a PAF or PuAF can be tax-effective, but the benefit is tied to an obligation: the money must support eligible charities. It is a rare case where “tax planning” and “social conscience” are aligned rather than awkwardly at odds.
• Family legacy and values transmission: Many PAFs are explicitly set up to involve children and grandchildren in decision-making, embedding a habit of generosity across generations. Family meetings can move from arguments about who gets the beach house to discussions of which social problem to fund this year.
• Professional governance: PuAFs and advisory services provide compliance, investment management, and due diligence, freeing donors to focus on impact, not paperwork. For clients of financial advisers, that is an appealing proposition: philanthropy becomes a managed, measurable part of the broader wealth plan.

For professional advisers including financial planners, accountants and lawyers, this is where the story gets interesting. Structured giving is no longer a niche curiosity; it is becoming a mainstream advisory conversation blending estate planning, intergenerational wealth transfer, and values-based investing.

Why structured giving is good for the community

From the community’s perspective, structured giving helps tackle three longstanding weaknesses in Australian philanthropy: volatility, short-termism, and fragmentation.

• Smoothing the cycle: In times of crisis, think bushfires, pandemics and floods, Australians give dramatically, then donations can fall away as attention moves on. Structured funds, by contrast, must distribute every year, providing a more stable revenue stream for charities even when public attention shifts.
• Long-term bets on big problems: Complex challenges such as entrenched disadvantage, climate resilience, medical research or First Nations justice require funding that outlasts election cycles and media attention. PAFs and PuAFs can make multi-year commitments that let organisations plan, innovate, and evaluate properly.
• Strategic focus instead of scatter: When donors pool money in PuAFs or work with specialist advisers, they can coordinate funding rather than duplicating efforts in the same crowded spaces. That means fewer half-funded pilots and more robust, scalable programs.
• Strategic focus instead of scatter: Donors moving to considered, strategic, multi-year giving means more support for carefully vetted causes with a focus on robust, scalable programs, rather causes with the loudest headlines or the biggest marketing campaign.

Far from being an elite tax dodge, structured giving is one of the most community-minded tools in the financial arsenal. The “strings attached” – such as mandatory annual distributions to charities, tax-deductible requirements, and governance oversight – are entirely in the public’s favour.

So… are we generous or not?

The uncomfortable answer is that generosity in Australia is uneven but evolving in encouraging ways. Some Australians do give less than they could, or not at all. Others give quietly but at enormous scale, including through vehicles that never make for viral content.

What matters now is less the culture-war argument about whether we are “still a generous nation” and more the practical question of how to channel that generosity for maximum, sustained impact. Structured giving is not a silver bullet, but it is a powerful piece of infrastructure that locks generosity into the system, beyond mood, beyond news cycles, and beyond individual lifetimes.

The message is simple: Australians are generous; and they are becoming more strategic. For professional advisers, the opportunity is sharper: every substantial client conversation about wealth should include a serious, technically competent discussion of philanthropy, not as an afterthought, but as a core pillar of long-term planning.

If that sounds controversial, good. A country as wealthy as Australia should be ambitious about the scale and sophistication of its giving. The barbecue myth of the “good bloke who chips in when it counts” is charming, but the future of generosity lies in something more intentional: a nation of donors who treat philanthropy with the same seriousness, structure, and creativity they bring to building their wealth.

Done right, that does not just prove that Australians are generous. It ensures that generosity grows and keeps working for the community long after the last sausage has gone cold.

Published April 2026