Some of you may have heard that the state government has set up an inquiry into the Recruitment Methods and Impacts of Cults and Organised Fringe Groups.
“On 3 April 2025, the Legislative Assembly agreed to the following motion: That this House refers an inquiry into cults and organised fringe groups in Victoria, the methods used to recruit and control their members and the impacts of coercive control to the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee for consideration and report no later than 30 September 2026.”
Citizens are permitted to make submissions to the committee and I have done so last week (If you would like a copy, please email me and I’ll send it to you). I state in my submission that whilst I applaud the initiative of the inquiry because it is timely, I have some concerns. The first concern is that stakeholder groups, such as churches and other faith groups, should be genuinely engaged by means of appreciative enquiry – something this government does not do well. Many of us have heard horror stories of people caught up in cults and other fringe groups. The emotional, financial, spiritual and psychological damage is long lasting and some people never recover, and families have been devasted. And so, yes, an inquiry is a good thing – if it is conducted genuinely and is not a Trojan horse exercise used to continue the covert erosion of the religious freedoms.
With regard to the statement and definitions provided on the Parliament of Victoria information website (https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/cofg/guidance-note/) and, in particular, the so-called, “widely adopted definition in the research of cults is provided by West and Langone (1986)”, I see concerns arising in terms of blanket application. In general terms, the definition is helpful, viz.,
“a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.”
However, my concern is the difficulty of interpretation and application of this definition in any objective sense – generally speaking. Viewed through the lens of, say, one church denomination, and from that stand point, there is some collective and uniform objective understanding of what aberrant, or cult-like practices might be based on their unique benchmark tests. However, someone from outside that sphere could regard the very same definition very differently according to their benchmark standards. What is orthodox for one group is not orthodox for another, such is the nature of differing faith traditions. There are many different Christian faith traditions with differences in orthodoxy ranging from the quite divergent to quite subtle shades of nuance, and so, there is inherent difficulty with the definition when it is applied in general terms. The inquiry must become cognisant of the generalities and the nuances as they shape an investigative methodology.
Depending on who wields this definition very different conclusions can be arrived at for the same group of people under examination. This is a key issue of fairness.
There is a great danger here that a secular adjudicator on what is, or is not, a cult could make assumptions or imputations in very subjective ways about a citizen’s, or a group’s sincerely held beliefs –there is precedent for that at the Victorian Civil & Administrative
Tribunal. The committee simply must consult carefully with experts in these fields who are able to carefully consider and differentiate the pertinent issues.
The other major concern for me is freedom of religious expression. Again, I concur with commentary on the web page mentioned above that, “Religious freedom does not grant a licence to cause harm. There is a distinction between genuine religious practice and harmful behaviour.” I don’t think I could find any genuine person of faith in disagreement with that. The statement itself, however, is quite assumptive and pejorative. Again, this is a general principle that applies to all sorts of freedoms in our nation, including freedom of speech. The core issue here is how is a genuine religious practice determined - and by whom? Who decides what is harmful and how it is harmful, apart from the obvious criminal impact? What objective criteria should be used to ascertain what is cultish and what isn’t? And is that even the real issue here? Associated with that challenge is how to frame laws with appropriate limits which are imposed on freedoms that ensure those freedoms are properly protected and, at the same time, ensure they are not recklessly abused? This is an issue in any law-making endeavour.
The state legislated the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 which came into effect in February 2022. Once again, laudably, (in large measure), laws were put in place to protect Victorians from, and respond to, the serious damage and trauma caused by change and suppression practices that had been practiced by some faith traditions – against a person’s will. This is, of course, repugnant and always wrong. However, there was significant state overreach in that the eventual legislation prevents people seeking, of their own volition, access to the counsel and prayer ministry from their pastor, priest or local church. If they, themselves, wish to maintain, or recover, what they believe is the true sense of their biological gender at birth - but who have a personal struggle in achieving this. That right is now denied them. It is now an offence for a pastor or priest to provide such support even when requested. Overreach? You bet. The eventual legislation was really about gender ideology - not human rights.
The critical issue here is the violation of a person’s will, and the manner and trauma of it. Yet, that issue was stretched into a gender ideology construct which was then legislated and imposed on others in a gross violation of their will. This is overreach. The kind of legislation presumably envisioned to tackle cults and fringe groups amply lends itself to more such overreach.
Any criminal behaviour should be brought to account regardless - not what someone believes. Cults and fringe groups have been with us for centuries from Satan worshippers to UFO-watchers. In a democracy, the issue should always be behaviour that is criminal. Therefore, my final concern is whether we do, in fact, need legislation to control cults and fringe groups. We already have an extensive range of laws in the criminal code which could easily be augmented – if necessary - to identify specific offences with specific enforcement options. For example, psychological, emotional and financial abuse – these are not difficult to verify with expert help. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights committee is already established, as well, and is well-equipped to hear any complaints of discrimination and victimisation of any kind – this is in their charter for all Victorians.
In short, the biggest issue here is overreach by government in deciding what is a cult/fringe group and what isn’t. Who decides? This is another of those times when good people must influence for righteous outcomes and not do nothing and then complain when we’re saddled with yet more religious freedom restrictions.
Time to write. Time to stand in the gap. Call me if you want to know more.
Ps Milton
[Checkout: www.acl.org.au]