64 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019
(presumably including cancellation of fair game
and disconnection) were not genuine.78
It has been noted earlier that complaints about
Scientology were made to the inquiry of the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities
Commission in 1998. More recently, in 2009,
complaints by former Scientologists were made
to Senator Nick Xenophon who dutifully raised
these matters to public attention and tabled in
parliament numerous letters of complaint he had
received. These complaints, “written by former
followers in Australia,” raised an extraordinary
number of serious abuses allegedly perpetrated
within Scientology including: false
imprisonment, coerced abortions, embezzlement
of Church funds for the personal use of
executives, physical violence including sexual
assaults, intimidation, blackmail, harmful dietary
punishments and other punishments including
illegal confinement and torture, bans on
medication and seeking medical attention,
forcing adherents to cut ties with family
members and friends, and cover-ups of illegal
activities by the Church.79
Media coverage of Senator Xenophon’s
parliamentary speech was extensive, accurately
reporting on the claims that Scientology was a
“criminal organization hiding behind religion”
and the allegations of torture and other claims
made against the organization. At the same time,
media outlets allowed ample opportunity for
Scientology to respond to the allegations, which
78 WA Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard),
Perth, 16 May 1973, p. 1764–1767 his colleague, the Hon.
William R. Withers, felt that the 1968 legislation had helped to
bring about the 1969 reform, which had to be accepted at face
value (ibidem, p. 1766–1767). The Leader of the Opposition, Sir
Charles Court, said in debate that “some of the attitudes of people
concerned [at the time] were unfair, embarrassing, and
threatening” (WA Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates
[Hansard], Perth, 10 May 1973, p. 1646). The distinction made by
MacKinnon between leaders (oligarchs) and followers is
interesting. In another instance, reminiscent of infamous
Scientology undercover operations in the US and Canada a
Scientologist was fined for fraudulently obtaining a confidential
State Government file on Scientology. While he denied any
affiliations with Scientology (which was contradicted by police
evidence), the link with Scientology would be relevant if there was
any proof that he had acted under the orders of the oligarchs
controlling the organization see “Man took secret file by fraud,”
The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 1975, p. 1.
79 Commonwealth of Australia Senate, Parliamentary Debates
(Hansard), Canberra, 18 November 2009.
it did with vigour, alleging that the senator had
abused parliamentary privilege and had relied
upon unreliable witnesses, being “disgruntled
former members who use hate speech and
distorted accounts of their experiences in the
church.”80 If the allegations were alleged to be
somewhat sensationalist, the Australian media
can hardly be faulted for reporting on
newsworthy material raised in parliament by a
media savvy, successful politician.
This litany of alleged abuses, the extensive
media coverage and the number of Australian
complainants involved, particularly relative to
the small size of the local membership, would
surely lead to urgent official action if the
organization was something other than one
categorized as a “religion.” Yet initial attempts
by Xenophon to convince his parliamentary
colleagues to investigate the allegations were
rebuffed by the major political parties, with the
senator reportedly being “warned informally that
they would be wary about anything smacking of
intruding upon religious freedom,”, which might
be characterized as a witchhunt aimed at one
group.81 Nevertheless, with persistence, and
possibly due to his crucial crossbench position
(with the government lacking a senatorial
majority), the senator was able to persuade his
colleagues to establish an inquiry into the need
for a more sufficient public benefit test for tax
exempt entities in general, incidentally including
80 N. Bita, “Scientology criminal, says Senator Nick Xenophon,”
The Australian, 18 November 2009,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/scientology-
criminal-says-senator-nick-xenophon/news-story/
3465c11adea6c32e29b3c2ed77f2486a NewsComAu, “Church of
Scientology response to Nick Xenophon,” The Daily Telegraph, 17
November 2009, http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/
news/national/church-of-scientology-response-to-nick-xenophon/
news-story/42314e74a1edc58e0e0e55d6e4bf61ef
81 M. Davis describes the accounts tabled as “credible” and noting
that “[y]ou might have though the role of Senate committees
should include investigating serious grievances and claims of
mistreatment by citizens who have nowhere else to because of gaps
in the legal system” (idem, “Not all grievances are created equal in
politics,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 March 2010,
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/not-all-
grievances-are-created-equal-in-politics-20100318-qiws.html).
Interestingly, one scholarly commentator later dismissively refers
to the “tirades from Senator Xenophon under the cover of
parliamentary privilege” (B. Doherty, “Is There Room for
Scientology Amid Australia’s Religious Diversity,?”
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/20/3459702.htm
[20 March 2012]).

International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 10, 2019 65
religious groups (for which public benefit was
long presumed under the common law of
charity). So while the major parties were
reluctant (as general policy rather than
constitutional imperative) to target a specific
entity that might claim religious status, the
generic inquiry was understood by all to have
been prompted by the allegations raised about
Scientology.
In due course, on the basis of evidence received
about Scientology and some other groups, the
Senate Committee noted, with respect to cults,
that “[i]t is a matter of concern that allegations
of grossly inappropriate behaviour continue to
be made, and arouse concern, yet there is no
systematic means of dealing with these
allegations, especially where no specific
criminal offence has been committed …
[S]ufficient evidence was put before it to suggest
that the behaviour of cults should be reviewed
with a view to developing and implementing a
policy on this issue that goes beyond taxation
law.”82
It recommended, unanimously, that the
government respond to “unacceptable behaviour
by cult like organizations” by developing an
“international best practice approach.”83 While
this recommendation was sidestepped with tepid
excuses by a timid government,84 another
recommendation to proceed with the
establishment of a national commission to deal
with the not-for-profit sector was arguably the
final catalyst leading to the establishment of the
Australian Charities and Not-for-profit
Commission in December 2012.
The Senate Committee was also very much alive
to the dilemma presented by the High Court’s
82 Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Report on the Tax
Laws Amendment (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010, Canberra,
September 2010, p. 29–30.
83 Ibidem, p. 3–4.
84 Senate Economics Reference Committee, Senate Economics
Reference Committee inquiry into augmented tax assessments:
Commonwealth Government response, Canberra 2011. For a
critique of this response, see S. Mutch, Cults and Public Policy:
Protecting the Victims of Cultic Abuse in Australia, the paper
presented at the CIFS conference Cults in Australia: Facing the
Realities, hosted by Senators Sue Boyce &Nick Xenophon,
Canberra, 2 November 2011.
1983 Scientology decision,85 which it noted is
sometimes interpreted as meaning that the Court
provided a one size fits all definition of religion
for all occasions.86.Examining the reasoning of
the Court, it does seem that the Court was
sensitive to the various contexts in which a
definition of religion might be applied. As it was
an appellate decision, it might have been
predicted that the Court would easily determine
that the Victorian government did not intend to
benefit Scientology as a religious institution at
the relevant time under the Pay-roll Tax Act
1971. This possible prediction would have
accorded with the views of the Victorian
Supreme Court, particularly as Scientology was
outlawed in the 1965 Psychological Practices
Act (the fact that those aspects of the Act
dealing with Scientology were repealed in 1982
being irrelevant to the legislative intent at the
time). But the High Court took the view that
pay-roll tax exemptions were applicable to
religious institutions rather than being applicable
in the context of charity law, and so: “The
privileges afforded to religious institutions …
can be seen as an endeavour by the Victorian
legislature to promote religious freedom
generally through the support of religious
institutions, rather than an effort to promote
charitable activities specifically.”87
Therefore the expansive definition applicable to
constitutional protection of religious exercise
might also be relevant in the context of
promoting religious freedom through taxation
relief. It can be observed that the lack of
vigorous pleadings to the contrary might have
aided this outcome, and Wilson &Deane JJ
invited the Victorian legislature to rectify the
position if it disagreed (notwithstanding changes
in government in the interim), noting that while
they had determined Scientology to be a religion
in Victoria for relevant purposes, “[t]hat does
not, of course, mean either that the practices of
the applicant or its rules are beyond the control
85 Which was reported with a straight bat by Australian
newspapers, in coverage that allowed Scientology to claim it was a
“blow for religious freedom” see, e.g., V. Blunden, “Scientology a
religion, High Court says,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 28
October 1983, p. 3.
86 Senate Economics Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 22.
87 S. Mutch, Cults, Religion, and Public Policy, p. 337.