This is our submission to the Victorian Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee’s ‘Inquiry into the recruitment methods and impacts of cults and organised fringe groups’. Find out more about the inquiry here.

31 July 2025

Dear Chair and committee members,

This is a submission by the Rationalist Society of Australia (RSA) to the Victorian Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into the recruitment methods and impacts of cults and organised fringe groups. The RSA is Australia’s oldest freethought organisation, promoting reason, secularism and evidence-based public policy since 1906. We have thousands of members and supporters located across Australia, including in Victoria. We appreciate the opportunity to take part in this inquiry.

We have long been concerned about the human rights impacts of destructive cults on individuals and families – and, ultimately, the wider community. We believe this is a shared concern across not just pro-secular and freethought groups like ours but also mainstream faith groups and wider society.

Before we continue, it is important to acknowledge that we are a relatively small not-for-profit organisation and we do not have particular expertise about how cult groups organise and operate. We recognise that this is a complex area and that new ways of understanding cults are emerging. 

We recognise that defining what is a ‘cult’ can be problematic, that not all groups typically thought of as ‘cults’ are religious, and that there is a spectrum – from groups being mostly safe and benign for members, to groups being on the verge of ‘cultish’, to groups being associated with increasing levels of harm and risk for members. Given that we primarily hear concerns from our network about religious cults, we are particularly focused, in this submission, on religious cult groups that have destructive impacts and cause harm. 

As such, we welcome the committee’s focus on harmful behaviours and not on beliefs. While many people will take issue with the beliefs of cult groups, ultimately the parliament/government has no place in policing beliefs. However, we contend – and we’re sure the majority of Australians agree – that parliaments and governments do have a role in responding to practices, activities and behaviours that demonstrably harm the fundamental human rights of members of society. 

The committee’s focus on harm and not beliefs also negates any counter argument that seeks to privilege “religious freedom” – an argument already made by some religious lobbyists in the media about this committee’s inquiry[1]. People are free to believe what they want, but freedom to act must be limited when it harms other people’s fundamental rights.

This principle is made clear in international human rights commitments and declarations that Australia is party to. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Article 18, 1 and 2) protects “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, but adds that:

No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 

It also states (Article 18, 3):

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

We urge the committee to centre the experiences of people who have survived and exited cult groups. It is important for their voices to be heard and empowered in crafting suitable policy responses.

Our advocacy 

In late 2024, following a seemingly constant stream of reports about cults in the mainstream media, we began campaigning for Australian states and territories to address issues of coercive control in religious cults. We told attorneys-general that religious cults posed a great danger to the fundamental rights and freedoms of many Australians, and urged them to expand coercive control laws to deal with harmful and abusive practices within religious cults[2].

One thing that characterises destructive religious cults is the extent of control they deploy over individuals’ lives. In our letters to attorneys-general, we noted that survivors of religious cult groups – such as the Exclusive Brethren, Geelong Revival Centre, Shincheonji Church, and Jehovah’s Witnesses – had, in media articles, detailed common patterns of coercive behaviour. Among the common complaints reported were:

• families being torn apart by policies of “separation”, excommunication and shunning;
• restrictions around watching television and eating with outsiders;
• restrictions on women, including what roles they can work in (if even allowed to work), how they dress, when they are to marry, how to lead their lives, and restrictions on education levels for girls;
• bigotry towards LGBTQIA people and ongoing change and suppression practices;
• restrictions on personal relationships;
• prohibitions on young people pursuing tertiary education;
• violent punishment and sexual abuse;
• threats of losing their family and their salvation;
• use of tactics to isolate and control people;
• financial coercion, with restrictions around donating money and assets, and who to do business with;
• restrictions on political activity and voting;
• prohibitions on the use of popular websites or social media platforms;
• constant monitoring, including via computer software, and cultures of surveillance;
• prohibitions on accessing life-saving treatment, such as blood transfusions, in cases of medical emergency.

This is not an exhaustive list of the kinds of practices occurring in such religious cults. Clearly, these are practices that are destructive to the lives of individuals and are at odds with fundamental human rights norms. The impact of such practices can no longer be brushed under the carpet. They are having devastating impacts on people’s lives – even, in extreme cases, contributing directly to deaths.

A way forward

A number of jurisdictions are already looking to address issues of coercive control in domestic and family relations. There is now a community expectation that the authorities will intervene in such situations. 

We want to see coercive control laws expanded to address coercive control in cults groups, with offences for people using coercive practices that cause harm in group-based contexts.

We want to see government investment in support services tailored for people to recover from such experiences and re-integrate and re-connect with wider society. Many cult survivors and people who have escaped from high-demand religious groups suffer trauma and carry immense psychological burden. 

We want to see state authorities recognise the importance of this issue and prioritise effective coordination and information sharing across departments, agencies and sectors to address it. As suggested by cult survivor groups as part of this inquiry, such measures[1] may include: establishing an independent commissioner with the responsibility for prevention, oversight, systemic accountability, and coordination, and with the powers to monitor, research and investigate systemic patterns of coercive control; and the training of frontline workers to recognise and respond to group-based coercive control.

We want to see governments adopting initiatives through the education system to strengthen critical thinking skills and safeguard new generations from falling victim to the recruiting tactics and coercive practices of destructive cults.

Also, we urge the parliament to consider how the ongoing privileging of religion in public life in Victoria and across Australia negatively impacts on the human rights of non-religious people and ex-religious people, including those who have escaped traumatic experiences in destructive cults. For these people, having daily acts of religious worship imposed on them as part of formal proceedings in our nation’s state and federal parliaments, and in local government meetings, can be alienating and re-traumatising. 

The issue of the imposition of acts of religious worship in government institutions was among a number of examples of discriminatory and unfair treatment towards non-religious people detailed in a submission this month to the United Nations Human Rights Council[4]. In the submission to the Universal Periodic Review (fourth cycle) of Australia’s human rights, the RSA, supported by a number of non-religious, ex-religious and pro-secular organisations, also identified the problem of religious organisations gaining charitable and tax-exempt status for the purpose of ‘advancing religion’ – with the advancement of religion automatically considered to be a public benefit. Meanwhile, non-religious organisations promoting non-religious worldviews are denied the same treatment. Some cults have charities for the purpose of ‘advancing religion’. Perversely, organisations that help cult survivors recover from trauma do not enjoy the same benefits that are automatically afforded to the charities of destructive cults for advancing religion.

Also, the submission to the UN Human Rights Council noted the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ coercive Census religion question. In asking ‘What is the person’s religion?’, the question assumes everyone has a religion. Clearly, the framing of the question’s wording – giving the perception that there may be something wrong with identifying as not religious – is likely to be quite confronting for people who have experienced religious trauma.

Victoria has an opportunity to be a world leader in this space, just as it has been in addressing other areas of institutional abuse and coercive control over recent years. Those reforms were informed by lived-experience expertise. Similarly, we hope to see the parliament take a survivor-led approach in pursuing a number of reforms relating to coercive control in cults. We agree wholeheartedly with cult survivor groups who have argued in this inquiry that addressing coercive control in destructive cults is a “natural next step” in Victoria’s commitment to justice, safety, and systemic accountability[5].

Regards,

Si Gladman

Executive Director

Rationalist Society of Australia

Footnotes

[1] Rationalist Society of Australia (2025), ‘Christian lobby views cult inquiry as a threat to religious freedom’, accessed July 2025, https://rationalist.com.au/christian-lobby-views-cult-inquiry-as-a-threat-to-religious-freedom/

[2] Rationalist Society of Australia (2024), ‘RSA calls on states and territories to address coercive control in cults’, accessed July 2025, https://rationalist.com.au/rsa-calls-on-states-and-territories-to-address-coercive-control-in-cults/

[3] McIvor, P., McIvor, C., & Spencer, R. (2025), Beyond Belief: Responding to Coercive Cults and High-Control Groups, Survivors of Coercive Cults and High-Control Groups; Stop Religious Coercion Australia.

[4] Rationalist Society of Australia (2025), ‘Coalition of groups highlights discrimination of non-religious people in submission to UN Human Rights Council’, accessed July 2025, https://rationalist.com.au/coalition-of-groups-highlights-discrimination-of-non-religious-people-in-submission-to-un-human-rights-council/

[5] McIvor, P., McIvor, C., & Spencer, R. (2025), Beyond Belief: Responding to Coercive Cults and High-Control Groups, Survivors of Coercive Cults and High-Control Groups; Stop Religious Coercion Australia.