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.

56 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
Scientologists International for want of
evidence, prosecutions against fifteen individual
Scientologists were withdrawn.23
Efforts were also made at the Commonwealth
level to stifle the dissemination of Scientology
material24 and to deny the entry of known
adherents to Australia, which was a tangible
disadvantage for anyone concerned.25 However,
it seems feasible to suggest that rather than
curbing the potential growth of Scientology,
governmental attempts at suppression might
have had an enervating, galvanizing effect. This
unintended consequence was mooted by a critic
who said the original ban in Victoria: “Probably
did Scientology more good than harm. It
provided free publicity, and because it had the
trappings of a witch-hunt, made Scientology the
underdog, gaining Hubbard much needed
support … [I]t was impossible to ban
Scientology. The followers in Victoria simply
changed their name to the ‘Church of the New
Faith’ and carried on where they had left off.”26
Governmental crackdowns certainly provided
the Church with campaigning opportunities,
including demonstrations and petitions,27 which
were duly reported. Campaigns to repeal anti-
Scientology legislation also resulted in the
production of some classic polemics,28 if not
personally written by L. Ron Hubbard, then
certainly true to an injunction attributed to the
founder to attack rather than defend,29 making a
23 “Hubbard group’s conviction quashed,” The West Australian, 4
December 1969, p. 1.
24 “50 books of cult seized,” The Advertiser, 18 September 1968, p.
10.
25 Cited in S. Mutch, From “Cult” to “Religion,” p. 52.
26 J. Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron
Hubbard Exposed, New York, 1990, p. 159–160.
27 F. Knight, New York ignores protest against “Hitler in
Australia,” The Australian, 30 July 1969, p. 7 J. Cannon,
“Australia, ‘land of intolerance,’” The Herald, 16 November 1972,
p. 5.
28 Church of Scientology of California, Kangaroo Court: An
Investigation Into the Conduct of the Board of Inquiry Into
Scientology: Melbourne, Australia, East Grinstead, 1967 Church
of Scientology, Whatever Happened to Adelaide. A Report on the
Select Committee on the Scientology (Prohibition) Act to the
Government and People of South Australia, Perth, 1972.
29 ”If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or
any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against
them to cause them to sue for peace … Don’t ever defend, always
attack” (R. Miller, Bare-Faced Mmessiah: The True Story of L.
Ron Hubbard, London, 1987, p. 241).
unique contribution to the primary literature on
lobbying campaigns.
Mistrust of Government and
Discrimination
Another explanation for low census numbers is
that due to an apprehension of political and
public hostility, a proportion of Scientologists
might be reluctant to disclose their faith to a
government survey.30 This idea can be linked to
the effects of political opposition to the group, as
the history of attempted suppression could have
generated mistrust of governmental intentions.
Apprehension might be particularly acute when
it relates to the potential government misuse of
private, confidential information contained in a
census.
In addition, political opposition could have
found some resonance in the wider community,
possibly resulting in an increase in
discrimination alleged against individual
Scientologists. Researchers note with unstinting
approval a 1984 report of the New South Wales
(NSW) Anti-Discrimination Board, which
“reports, in an unprejudiced way … the Church
of Scientology as a case study of Australian
intolerance and prejudice toward minority
religions.”31 The researchers also note a 1998
report of the Australian Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC),
which explored “the large group of submissions
received from members of the Church who
complained of vilification and harassment,” and
cited claims by a Scientologist that “despite the
gradual recognition and tolerance of the group in
Australia over the last thirty years, many still
experience intolerance and discrimination.”32
Judging by the large number of submissions
from Scientologists, it seems that any
apprehension Scientologists might then have had
in divulging personal details to the Australian
30 “Taking into account the level of hostility that the Church has
experienced over the years in Australia …, we might expect a
certain number of Scientologists who are not willing to reveal their
religion for a governmental census” (A. Possamai, A. Possamai-
Inesedy, “Scientology Down Under,” in J. R. Lewis [ed.], op. cit.,
p. 346).
31 Ibidem, p. 353 (emphasis added).
32 Ibidem.