International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 55
This deflection, to celebrity gossip and dual faith
adherence, and counterpoint that the
organization was in fact rapidly expanding,15 is
the type of coverage that Scientology could only
welcome.16 The article is certainly reflective of
skilful public relations interaction with the
media.17 However, Scientology’s membership
claims in Australia, as elsewhere, can be taken
with a grain of salt.18
Other explanations seeking to explain the poor
census figures, which might inculcate some
sympathy for Scientology, include: the possibly
damaging effects of government suppression,
discrimination against members of the group,
resistance common to transplanted religion, and
some allegedly unfair, damaging media reports.
Other plausible explanations, but detrimental to
the standing and ambitions of Scientology,
include complaints of persistent anti-social and
internally harmful behaviour, and the possibility
of genuine consumer resistance to the
Scientology brand. The latter might be due to
aspects pertaining to its core beliefs, the
marketing of its spiritual products, and the
controversial reputation of its founder.
Government Suppression
For an historical perspective, we can note the
record of governmental opposition to
Scientology in its formative years, which
arguably may have stunted its growth. In 1965
and 1968, three Australian state governments
years previously, noted that the Church was operating in
Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney and that “although 20,000
members have passed through the books, officials agree that 3,000
would be close to the actual number of practicing brethren” (J.
May, “Scientology’s new reverence,” Nation Review, 28 April–3
May 1973, p. 845).
15 Perhaps also relying on a nice distinction between the human
and structural components of “organization.”
16 The article contained a picture of a smiling, photogenic
Scientology president outside HQ. The only note of mild discord
was at the end of the article, with the pastor of the Church next
door expressing some possible concern about the proposed
expansion.
17 Note the mention of Scientology publicists.
18 Citing membership claims worldwide and in Britain, D.V.
Barrett notes that “these numbers include people who have only
had one or two introductory auditing sessions [and are] cumulative
rather than current. … The Church does not appear to have clear
membership figures itself” (idem, The New Believers: a Survey of
Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, London, 2001, p. 447).
enacted draconian legislation aimed at
suppressing the nascent organization.
In Victoria, the Psychological Practices Act
1965 contained provisions aimed indirectly at
Scientology through the regulation of
psychology. The act also attacked the
organization directly, banning the E-meter or
galvanometer, banning the practice or
application of Scientology for a fee or reward
and banning all advertising relating to the
teaching of Scientology (whether for reward or
not). It provided for confiscation of Scientology
records by the Attorney General and for the
imposition of substantial fines (and even
imprisonment for two years) for teaching
Scientology for reward. As soon as the
legislation was proclaimed, Scientology
headquarters was raided, and 4,000 personal
files on clients were seized, and signs
advertising free introductory lectures were
reportedly removed.19
The governments of South Australia and
Western Australia followed suit, enacting the
Scientology (Prohibition) Act 1968 (SA) and the
Scientology Act 1968 (WA). The purpose of the
South Australian legislation was to “prohibit the
teaching, practice or application of the system of
study known as Scientology”. Its provisions
closely reflected the anti-Scientology provisions
of the Victorian act, except that it de-coupled the
provisions relating to psychology, opting to deal
with that aspect separately. The Western
Australian legislation was similar, except that it
also provided penalties for the “practice” of
Scientology, including fines and imprisonment
for one year.20 At the beginning of 1969, raids
were conducted by police in both states and
material seized.21 In addition, arrests were made
in Western Australia under the “practice”
provisions.22 However, in 1969, after a failed
prosecution of the Hubbard Association of
19 “Scientology files seized in raid,” The Sydney Morning Herald,
22 December 1965, p. 1 “Hunt for hidden Scientology files,” The
Australian, 23 December 1965, p. 3. For a full account, see S.
Mutch, Cults, Religion and Public Policy, p. 78–93.
20 See S. Mutch, Cults, Religion and Public Policy, p. 94–136.
21 “Police seize Scientology material,” The West Australian, 29
January 1969, p. 15.
22 “15 charged in Wa’s first Scientology hearing,” The Sun, 28
March 1969.
This deflection, to celebrity gossip and dual faith
adherence, and counterpoint that the
organization was in fact rapidly expanding,15 is
the type of coverage that Scientology could only
welcome.16 The article is certainly reflective of
skilful public relations interaction with the
media.17 However, Scientology’s membership
claims in Australia, as elsewhere, can be taken
with a grain of salt.18
Other explanations seeking to explain the poor
census figures, which might inculcate some
sympathy for Scientology, include: the possibly
damaging effects of government suppression,
discrimination against members of the group,
resistance common to transplanted religion, and
some allegedly unfair, damaging media reports.
Other plausible explanations, but detrimental to
the standing and ambitions of Scientology,
include complaints of persistent anti-social and
internally harmful behaviour, and the possibility
of genuine consumer resistance to the
Scientology brand. The latter might be due to
aspects pertaining to its core beliefs, the
marketing of its spiritual products, and the
controversial reputation of its founder.
Government Suppression
For an historical perspective, we can note the
record of governmental opposition to
Scientology in its formative years, which
arguably may have stunted its growth. In 1965
and 1968, three Australian state governments
years previously, noted that the Church was operating in
Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney and that “although 20,000
members have passed through the books, officials agree that 3,000
would be close to the actual number of practicing brethren” (J.
May, “Scientology’s new reverence,” Nation Review, 28 April–3
May 1973, p. 845).
15 Perhaps also relying on a nice distinction between the human
and structural components of “organization.”
16 The article contained a picture of a smiling, photogenic
Scientology president outside HQ. The only note of mild discord
was at the end of the article, with the pastor of the Church next
door expressing some possible concern about the proposed
expansion.
17 Note the mention of Scientology publicists.
18 Citing membership claims worldwide and in Britain, D.V.
Barrett notes that “these numbers include people who have only
had one or two introductory auditing sessions [and are] cumulative
rather than current. … The Church does not appear to have clear
membership figures itself” (idem, The New Believers: a Survey of
Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions, London, 2001, p. 447).
enacted draconian legislation aimed at
suppressing the nascent organization.
In Victoria, the Psychological Practices Act
1965 contained provisions aimed indirectly at
Scientology through the regulation of
psychology. The act also attacked the
organization directly, banning the E-meter or
galvanometer, banning the practice or
application of Scientology for a fee or reward
and banning all advertising relating to the
teaching of Scientology (whether for reward or
not). It provided for confiscation of Scientology
records by the Attorney General and for the
imposition of substantial fines (and even
imprisonment for two years) for teaching
Scientology for reward. As soon as the
legislation was proclaimed, Scientology
headquarters was raided, and 4,000 personal
files on clients were seized, and signs
advertising free introductory lectures were
reportedly removed.19
The governments of South Australia and
Western Australia followed suit, enacting the
Scientology (Prohibition) Act 1968 (SA) and the
Scientology Act 1968 (WA). The purpose of the
South Australian legislation was to “prohibit the
teaching, practice or application of the system of
study known as Scientology”. Its provisions
closely reflected the anti-Scientology provisions
of the Victorian act, except that it de-coupled the
provisions relating to psychology, opting to deal
with that aspect separately. The Western
Australian legislation was similar, except that it
also provided penalties for the “practice” of
Scientology, including fines and imprisonment
for one year.20 At the beginning of 1969, raids
were conducted by police in both states and
material seized.21 In addition, arrests were made
in Western Australia under the “practice”
provisions.22 However, in 1969, after a failed
prosecution of the Hubbard Association of
19 “Scientology files seized in raid,” The Sydney Morning Herald,
22 December 1965, p. 1 “Hunt for hidden Scientology files,” The
Australian, 23 December 1965, p. 3. For a full account, see S.
Mutch, Cults, Religion and Public Policy, p. 78–93.
20 See S. Mutch, Cults, Religion and Public Policy, p. 94–136.
21 “Police seize Scientology material,” The West Australian, 29
January 1969, p. 15.
22 “15 charged in Wa’s first Scientology hearing,” The Sun, 28
March 1969.
