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.
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.
