62 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
critics (including apostates) and other harmful
behaviour occurring internally to the group. The
then apparently ongoing nature of anti-social
behaviour of the first category was noted by Roy
Wallis in his seminal study on Scientology,
published in the mid 1970s. Wallis concluded,
after looking at the effects of the deviance
amplification model applied to Scientology from
the 1960s, that “despite a considerable drop in
moral panic and the severity of societal reaction,
the movement continues to react to criticism and
commentary in a manner which suggests a
persisting alienation from conventional norms of
behaviour in this area.”68
My own research into public policy responses to
Scientology focused on the period from the early
1960s (Scientology came to Australia in 1957)
to the mid-1980s. This research revealed that
allegations concerning the behavioural trait
noted by Wallis, along with complaints of
harmful misconduct internal to the group, have
regularly dogged the organization in Australia
and abroad. In subsequent years complaints have
persisted, attracting intermittent media coverage
and official attention.
Bookends to the period under examination in my
research not only illustrate the ongoing nature of
complaints about Scientology, but also the way
in which the “religion” question was crucial, if
problematic, to policy outcomes. Prior to taking
legislative action against Scientology in 1965,
the Victorian government had commissioned
Kevin Victor Anderson, “a distinguished leader
of the Melbourne bar,”69 to undertake a
commission of inquiry into the organization.
After nearly two years of exhaustive inquiry,
Anderson reported that Scientology “propagated
falsehoods and deceptions was a money making
business made false scientific claims utilized
potentially harmful hypnotic techniques made
unjustified claims for the E-meter, used
techniques for domination and enslavement was
68 R. Wallis, Societal “Reaction to Scientology: A Study in the
Sociology of Deviant Religion,” in: idem (ed.), Sectarianism:
Znalyses of Religion and Non-Religious Sects, New York, 1975, p.
110–111 see also idem, The Road to Total Freedom: A
Sociological Analysis of Scientology, London, 1976.
69 J. G. Foster, Enquiry Into the Practice and Effects of
Scientology, London, December 1971, p. 4.
harmful to mental health misused sincere but
vulnerable people (causing them to shun proper
medical and other treatment) negligently used
untrained personnel made unjustified healing
claims targeted the vulnerable in advertising
contained scope for internal coercion promoted
family discord (disconnect policy) was hostile
to the medical profession and critics (fair game
policy) was morally undesirable and was not a
religion as claimed.”70
While Anderson canvassed the religious claims
of Scientology, and dismissed them, he felt the
issue was irrelevant to his adverse findings. It is
ironic that the legislative response that followed
his report might have been better crafted if the
possibility of Scientology being characterized as
a religion had been anticipated from the outset,
and more care taken to define “religious
institution” for the purposes of state law.
The Achilles’ heel in the Victorian legislation
was that it contained an exemption for groups
identified as religious under the Commonwealth
Marriage Act 1961. This exemption became a
fatal flaw after Scientology was listed as a
religion in the 1973 federal proclamation, and
led to the slow, reluctant unravelling of the
state’s legislation. The view that Anderson’s
findings should be disregarded, particularly
because he felt that Scientology was not a
religion, has also found traction among those
who think that religions (however loosely
defined) are in a special category, by definition
deserving of privileges and exemptions not
always available to other entities. Behaviour
which might be considered harmful or
exploitative in some contexts becomes cleansed
in a religious environment.71
70 S. Mutch, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 66–67.
71 The way in which labour can be considered to be volunteerism
in religious (and sometimes other non-profit entities) exemplifies
the different perceptions aroused depending on context. So a Fair
Work Ombudsman’s report into the Church of Scientology was a
disappointment to Senator Xenophon (whose referrals had
instigated the inquiry) because some of the work complained about
was deemed to be “voluntary in nature, not one of employment,” to
which Xenophon retorted, “It seems curious that the Fair Work
Ombudsman has taken this approach, given that the person was a
minor, was told what hours to work and the circumstances in
which they could work” see S. Cannane, Xenophon Disappointed
by Scientology Report, http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/
2011/s3319927.htm (16 September 2011).
critics (including apostates) and other harmful
behaviour occurring internally to the group. The
then apparently ongoing nature of anti-social
behaviour of the first category was noted by Roy
Wallis in his seminal study on Scientology,
published in the mid 1970s. Wallis concluded,
after looking at the effects of the deviance
amplification model applied to Scientology from
the 1960s, that “despite a considerable drop in
moral panic and the severity of societal reaction,
the movement continues to react to criticism and
commentary in a manner which suggests a
persisting alienation from conventional norms of
behaviour in this area.”68
My own research into public policy responses to
Scientology focused on the period from the early
1960s (Scientology came to Australia in 1957)
to the mid-1980s. This research revealed that
allegations concerning the behavioural trait
noted by Wallis, along with complaints of
harmful misconduct internal to the group, have
regularly dogged the organization in Australia
and abroad. In subsequent years complaints have
persisted, attracting intermittent media coverage
and official attention.
Bookends to the period under examination in my
research not only illustrate the ongoing nature of
complaints about Scientology, but also the way
in which the “religion” question was crucial, if
problematic, to policy outcomes. Prior to taking
legislative action against Scientology in 1965,
the Victorian government had commissioned
Kevin Victor Anderson, “a distinguished leader
of the Melbourne bar,”69 to undertake a
commission of inquiry into the organization.
After nearly two years of exhaustive inquiry,
Anderson reported that Scientology “propagated
falsehoods and deceptions was a money making
business made false scientific claims utilized
potentially harmful hypnotic techniques made
unjustified claims for the E-meter, used
techniques for domination and enslavement was
68 R. Wallis, Societal “Reaction to Scientology: A Study in the
Sociology of Deviant Religion,” in: idem (ed.), Sectarianism:
Znalyses of Religion and Non-Religious Sects, New York, 1975, p.
110–111 see also idem, The Road to Total Freedom: A
Sociological Analysis of Scientology, London, 1976.
69 J. G. Foster, Enquiry Into the Practice and Effects of
Scientology, London, December 1971, p. 4.
harmful to mental health misused sincere but
vulnerable people (causing them to shun proper
medical and other treatment) negligently used
untrained personnel made unjustified healing
claims targeted the vulnerable in advertising
contained scope for internal coercion promoted
family discord (disconnect policy) was hostile
to the medical profession and critics (fair game
policy) was morally undesirable and was not a
religion as claimed.”70
While Anderson canvassed the religious claims
of Scientology, and dismissed them, he felt the
issue was irrelevant to his adverse findings. It is
ironic that the legislative response that followed
his report might have been better crafted if the
possibility of Scientology being characterized as
a religion had been anticipated from the outset,
and more care taken to define “religious
institution” for the purposes of state law.
The Achilles’ heel in the Victorian legislation
was that it contained an exemption for groups
identified as religious under the Commonwealth
Marriage Act 1961. This exemption became a
fatal flaw after Scientology was listed as a
religion in the 1973 federal proclamation, and
led to the slow, reluctant unravelling of the
state’s legislation. The view that Anderson’s
findings should be disregarded, particularly
because he felt that Scientology was not a
religion, has also found traction among those
who think that religions (however loosely
defined) are in a special category, by definition
deserving of privileges and exemptions not
always available to other entities. Behaviour
which might be considered harmful or
exploitative in some contexts becomes cleansed
in a religious environment.71
70 S. Mutch, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 66–67.
71 The way in which labour can be considered to be volunteerism
in religious (and sometimes other non-profit entities) exemplifies
the different perceptions aroused depending on context. So a Fair
Work Ombudsman’s report into the Church of Scientology was a
disappointment to Senator Xenophon (whose referrals had
instigated the inquiry) because some of the work complained about
was deemed to be “voluntary in nature, not one of employment,” to
which Xenophon retorted, “It seems curious that the Fair Work
Ombudsman has taken this approach, given that the person was a
minor, was told what hours to work and the circumstances in
which they could work” see S. Cannane, Xenophon Disappointed
by Scientology Report, http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/
2011/s3319927.htm (16 September 2011).
