It is not the first time anti-cult inquiries and campaigns have been promoted in Australia. They have basically all been failures.

by Bernard Doherty

Part 1 of 2

In late April of this year, the Parliament of Victoria, Australia, announced that it would be establishing an Inquiry into the Recruitment Methods and Impacts of Cults and Organized Fringe Groups, under the auspices of the Parliamentary Legal and Social Issues Committee and chaired by Australian Labor Party (ALP) member Ella George. The broad Terms of Reference read: “That this House refers an inquiry into cults and organised fringe groups in Victoria, the methods used to recruit and control their members, and the impacts of coercive control to the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee for consideration and report no later than 30 September 2026.”       

In its press release, the Committee noted its purpose in more detail, stating: “The harmful tactics used by some cults and other groups to control their members are the primary focus of a new parliamentary inquiry, which has opened for input from the community. The Legislative Assembly’s Legal and Social Issues Committee is investigating the methods used to recruit people and the impacts of coercive behaviors.”

The concerning aspect of this inquiry for religious liberty came in the following series of statements: “This inquiry is not about judging or questioning anyone’s beliefs, religious or otherwise,” Committee Chair Ella George said, “Many groups, including new religious movements, provide individuals with a sense of belonging, shared belief, and meaningful support. However, some employ practices that can cause significant emotional, psychological, financial, or even physical harm.” “These behaviours are not confined to religious groups; they can occur in any setting. This inquiry is focused on the actions, not the beliefs behind them.”

George said recent events in the state have led to the probe: “There are legitimate concerns about the techniques being used by certain groups to attract and retain members, and whether they amount to coercion that should be criminalised.”

Within days, scholars of religion and others began to be invited directly to contribute; however, to date, no Australian scholar of religion, let alone an academic specializing in the study of New Religious Movements, has been invited to appear at the hearings. Instead, the hearings have primarily heard from former members and at least one well-known international anti-cult activist.

The proximate background of this inquiry, and the problems it presents, can be reconstructed quite well and need to be viewed within a broader social context.

The immediate impetus for this probe appears to have been the popularity of a podcast series, “Secrets We Keep: Pray Harder,” produced by journalist Richard Baker, which began casting in late October 2024.

Various podcasters and media outlets have since run other stories highlighting what they see as the abusive and coercive nature of the Geelong Revival Centre—a small Pentecostal church in Geelong which has run since the late 1950s—and on the first day ofpublic hearings, it was journalist Richard Baker and two former members of this church who appeared.

This media coverage and accompanying commentary had been building for some time, however. While it was ultimately the Labor member for Geelong, Christine Couzens, who, along with Victorian Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny, pushed for this inquiry, several media organisations and anti-cult groups have been advocating for it for some time, with similar campaigns operating in Queensland around the legislation of coercive control laws.

Indeed, as far back as December 2024, the Rationalist Society of Australia—which has been vocal in its support of the inquiry—called on attorneys general for all Australian states “to prioritise the introduction of coercive control laws that would effectively deal with coercive, harmful and abusive practices within religious cults.”

Before examining this further, however, a brief bit of historical contextualization is necessary.

Despite media claims about this being “an Australia-first parliamentary inquiry into cults,” the Inquiry is by no means unprecedented, both in Australia or overseas—indeed such inquiries into so-called “cults” have been taking place since at least the 1960s, with perhaps the most prototypical example being the Victorian Board of Inquiry into Scientology in 1963, the infamous “Anderson Inquiry,” which resulted in a highly prejudicial report condemning Scientology unequivocally (whilst also almost completely ignoring evidence provided by practising Scientologists!).

In the prefatory note, which is worth quoting simply because of the immoderate language and the type of hyperbole that the issue of “cults” tends to create,  Queen’s Counsel and later Supreme Court of Victoria judge Kevin Victor Anderson opined: “Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally, and socially; and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.”

The outcome of this Report—which advised against trying to ban Scientology legally—was the introduction of state legislation restricting the practice of Scientology within Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia. These laws proved unworkable, with no successful prosecutions ever recorded, and most were repealed with changes in state government. The Labor Party came to rue its initial attacks on Scientology in Victoria and, in all three states, opposed anti-Scientology legislation. Victoria, however, was more stubborn and persisted in maintaining its statutes for fifteen years, even as a dead letter, until 1982.

In 1983, the Church of the New Faith—the name Scientology had adopted in Victoria after they were forbidden from calling themselves Scientology—won a case before the full bench of the High Court of Australia, which became the benchmark for how religion is defined in Australian case law.

At least three other inquiries of a similar nature have occurred in the last thirty years, which have touched on the issue of “cults.” However, the alarmist types of reports they produce are episodic occurrences, usually arising from extraneous reasons, when the issue of “cults” finds itself on the public agenda. Writing in 2001, for example, the sociologist of religion Michael Hill observed of two reports commissioned in the late 1990s: “The problem with these reports is that they failed to recognise the appropriate expertise on which reliable conclusions might be based and sound policies developed; instead, they lent themselves to the agendas of interest groups. One has to conclude that in their attempts to investigate the nature of NRMs the reports are expensive but largely futile exercises.”

The last time this occurred was in late 2009, when Senator Nick Xenophon called, unsuccessfully, for a Royal Commission into the Church of Scientology, following a string of high-profile media exposés involving Scientology and some of its more prominent members (and ex-members). Xenophon’s call was rejected by both major parties in the Federal Parliament but was supported by the Greens, who wanted it expanded to include the Exclusive Brethren (now known as the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church). What was eventually established was a senate standing committee, which partially examined “cults” as part of its broader discussion of charity law reform. This report, which had an extremely negative tone, made one minor advisory recommendation in this regard—that the government investigate overseas best practice for “monitoring and controlling the unacceptable and/or illegal activities of cult-like organisations who use psychological pressure and breaches of general and industrial law to maintain control over individuals.”

The Gillard government did not take on this recommendation board for very sensible reasons, with the then Prime Minister noting in 2010: “Australia is home to a diversity of faiths, united by tolerance, mutual respect, and a commitment to democratic traditions. All Australians are free to choose their religion and are able to express and practise their religion and their beliefs, without intimidation and without interference. The Government considers that it is not the Government’s role to interfere with the religious beliefs or practices of individuals, unless they are in breach of Australian laws.”

Bernard Doherty

Bernard Doherty is an associate professor in the School of Theology and a research fellow in the Centre for Religion, Ethics and Society (CRES) at Charles Sturt University, Australia, based at St Mark’s National Theological Centre in Canberra. He is also an Honorary Fellow of INFORM at King’s College, United Kingdom. He has published extensively on new religions in Australia.