International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 63
At the other end of the period under
examination, in 1985, the Burdett Select
Committee in South Australia (appointed to look
into Scientology methods of recruiting and
obtaining service payments) considered that
there were three major areas of consumer
complaint. Firstly, recruits purchasing services
from Scientology were insufficiently informed,
with a number being in “a state of depression or
anxiety”. Secondly, it was difficult for unhappy
consumers to obtain refunds. Thirdly, recruits
who were promised staff positions were not
warned about the essentially voluntary nature of
these positions, such that they would receive
little or no payment. Both the Department of
Public and Consumer Affairs and the
Department of Labour were asked to maintain a
watching brief, so that if necessary generic
legislation could be introduced.72 The Select
Committee helpfully produced a draft model
agreement dealing with the provision of
psychological or spiritual services for fee or
reward (over certain amounts to be prescribed),
including a cooling-off period of seven days
before payment.73
This inquiry and recommendations would be
unexceptional if applied to any other area of
consumer activity, but the presumption that
religious groups occupy a privileged category
meant that the Select Committee had stepped
gingerly. Its members were aware of the
religious claims of Scientology and of the 1983
High Court ruling, although it is unclear whether
they had been advised that section 116 of the
Australian Constitution does not apply to state
legislation. Nevertheless, they felt some
constraint due to the religion question, and
proceeded with abundant caution, noting that:
“The Committee has no intention of making any
recommendations which might infringe Section
116 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act which relates to legislation in
respect of religion, even if the case above cited
[the 1983 case] is authority that the Church of
72 J.C. Burdett, Report of the Select Committee of the Legislative
Council on the Church of Scientology Incorporated, Adelaide
1985, p. 7.
73 Ibidem, p. 8.
Scientology is a religion for the purposes of the
Constitution Act.”74
Despite the mild, credible recommendations of
the Committee (designed for general application
rather than targeting any particular group),75 for
its part Scientology used the opportunity after
the tabling of the report to showcase its
innovative approach to public demonstration.
Scientology mourners marched two by two in a
procession from Victoria Square to Parliament
House. Pallbearers dressed in funereal garb
carried a coffin emblazoned with the words:
“death of religious freedom”. A petition was
presented to the President of the Legislative
Council demanding that the report be rescinded.
The bizarre stunt76 resulted in the type of media
coverage (including pictures) it was no doubt
calculated to attract.77
In this theatrical demonstration, pallbearers wore
hatbands displaying the names of targeted
politicians, which could be described as a robust
assertion of democratic free speech. However, in
an earlier instance, alleged tactics seemed
menacing. In the 1985, debate repealing the
Western Australian anti-Scientology legislation,
the Hon. Graham C. MacKinnon (who was
instrumental in the 1968 act) related in
parliament the fear that had been engendered at
the time of its passing. He had received a wreath
(which shocked his mother who opened the
package) and was apprehensive of being
investigated and followed, actions he attributed
to the “organization of Scientology,” not to its
sometimes sincere adherents. MacKinnon felt
that the original legislation had been effective
but had been undercut by federal recognition of
Scientology as a religion. He was in no doubt
that purported reforms by the Church in 1968
74 Ibidem, p. 2.
75 “It would obviously be unfair for such legislation to apply to the
Church of Scientology alone” (ibidem, p. 7–8).
76 Another tactic deployed in theatrical Scientology protests is the
Nazi card. When German Chancellor Helmut Kohl visited Sydney
in 1997, he was heckled by Scientology protesters against German
government policy against the group. Protesters were wearing Nazi
SS uniforms and bearing placards stating “Hands Off Our
Religion” and “Is Germany Really a Free Country?” (“Nazi-
uniformed protesters get Kohl shoulder,” The Courier-Mail, 7 May
1997, p. 9).
77 P. Sommer, “Scientologists rally against Council report,” The
Advertiser, 17 October 1985, p. 12.
At the other end of the period under
examination, in 1985, the Burdett Select
Committee in South Australia (appointed to look
into Scientology methods of recruiting and
obtaining service payments) considered that
there were three major areas of consumer
complaint. Firstly, recruits purchasing services
from Scientology were insufficiently informed,
with a number being in “a state of depression or
anxiety”. Secondly, it was difficult for unhappy
consumers to obtain refunds. Thirdly, recruits
who were promised staff positions were not
warned about the essentially voluntary nature of
these positions, such that they would receive
little or no payment. Both the Department of
Public and Consumer Affairs and the
Department of Labour were asked to maintain a
watching brief, so that if necessary generic
legislation could be introduced.72 The Select
Committee helpfully produced a draft model
agreement dealing with the provision of
psychological or spiritual services for fee or
reward (over certain amounts to be prescribed),
including a cooling-off period of seven days
before payment.73
This inquiry and recommendations would be
unexceptional if applied to any other area of
consumer activity, but the presumption that
religious groups occupy a privileged category
meant that the Select Committee had stepped
gingerly. Its members were aware of the
religious claims of Scientology and of the 1983
High Court ruling, although it is unclear whether
they had been advised that section 116 of the
Australian Constitution does not apply to state
legislation. Nevertheless, they felt some
constraint due to the religion question, and
proceeded with abundant caution, noting that:
“The Committee has no intention of making any
recommendations which might infringe Section
116 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act which relates to legislation in
respect of religion, even if the case above cited
[the 1983 case] is authority that the Church of
72 J.C. Burdett, Report of the Select Committee of the Legislative
Council on the Church of Scientology Incorporated, Adelaide
1985, p. 7.
73 Ibidem, p. 8.
Scientology is a religion for the purposes of the
Constitution Act.”74
Despite the mild, credible recommendations of
the Committee (designed for general application
rather than targeting any particular group),75 for
its part Scientology used the opportunity after
the tabling of the report to showcase its
innovative approach to public demonstration.
Scientology mourners marched two by two in a
procession from Victoria Square to Parliament
House. Pallbearers dressed in funereal garb
carried a coffin emblazoned with the words:
“death of religious freedom”. A petition was
presented to the President of the Legislative
Council demanding that the report be rescinded.
The bizarre stunt76 resulted in the type of media
coverage (including pictures) it was no doubt
calculated to attract.77
In this theatrical demonstration, pallbearers wore
hatbands displaying the names of targeted
politicians, which could be described as a robust
assertion of democratic free speech. However, in
an earlier instance, alleged tactics seemed
menacing. In the 1985, debate repealing the
Western Australian anti-Scientology legislation,
the Hon. Graham C. MacKinnon (who was
instrumental in the 1968 act) related in
parliament the fear that had been engendered at
the time of its passing. He had received a wreath
(which shocked his mother who opened the
package) and was apprehensive of being
investigated and followed, actions he attributed
to the “organization of Scientology,” not to its
sometimes sincere adherents. MacKinnon felt
that the original legislation had been effective
but had been undercut by federal recognition of
Scientology as a religion. He was in no doubt
that purported reforms by the Church in 1968
74 Ibidem, p. 2.
75 “It would obviously be unfair for such legislation to apply to the
Church of Scientology alone” (ibidem, p. 7–8).
76 Another tactic deployed in theatrical Scientology protests is the
Nazi card. When German Chancellor Helmut Kohl visited Sydney
in 1997, he was heckled by Scientology protesters against German
government policy against the group. Protesters were wearing Nazi
SS uniforms and bearing placards stating “Hands Off Our
Religion” and “Is Germany Really a Free Country?” (“Nazi-
uniformed protesters get Kohl shoulder,” The Courier-Mail, 7 May
1997, p. 9).
77 P. Sommer, “Scientologists rally against Council report,” The
Advertiser, 17 October 1985, p. 12.
