The Australian Christian Lobby warns against ‘dangerous’ cult laws in Victoria

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has voiced strong opposition to potential recent Victorian laws designed to guard people from coercive control inside cults, arguing that such measures could inadvertently goal legitimate faith communities.

Appearing before a parliamentary inquiry into cults and organised fringe groups, representatives from the ACL and the think tank Freedom for Faith cautioned that the proposed laws could blur the road between harmful coercion and real religious devotion. 

Jasmine Yuen, the ACL’s Victorian director, told the inquiry that existing criminal laws already address conduct related to cults and that additional laws could be “very dangerous”. She warned that any try and define or regulate “coercive behaviour in faith-based institutions” risked misclassifying mainstream Christian churches as cults.

“From a theological perspective, faith and practices are inseparable,” Yuen said. “Separating the 2 risks unfairly misclassifying legitimate faith communities – particularly Christian churches – as cults, whether through misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation.”

Yuen argued that such confusion may lead to unnecessary litigation or reputational harm against churches whose doctrines are simply out of step with popular opinion. She cited examples equivalent to traditional Christian teachings on marriage, the tip times, and the renewal of creation as beliefs that may very well be misinterpreted as “cultic” by critics.

Instead of introducing recent laws, the ACL has called for greater investment in education and preventative measures to assist individuals recognise and avoid harmful groups without imposing restrictions on religious freedom. 

The inquiry, chaired by Labor MP Ella George, was told that many witnesses had called for legislative motion against coercion by “high-control groups” because of its damaging impact on individuals and families.

However, when Liberal MP Rachel Westaway asked whether there was scope for laws to guard people already “lured” into cults and unable to make informed decisions, Yuen responded bluntly: “No.”

Mike Southon, executive director of Freedom for Faith, echoed similar apprehensions, noting that members of religion communities were deeply uneasy in regards to the inquiry’s broad definition of a cult.

“There is palpable fear in our faith communities that we’ll find yourself with a process where deep devotion to your faith is taken into account coercion,” Southon said. “Where personal sacrifice and giving is deemed abuse, commitment to a single universal truth is labelled intolerance, belief in everlasting consequences is coercion, and traditional morality is asserted to be harm.”

He warned that in such an environment, “any religion may very well be declared a cult, investigated by a commission or dobbed right into a hotline.” 

The parliamentary inquiry, which also heard from cult experts and survivor groups equivalent to The Religious Trauma Collective and Cult Information and Family Support, is tasked with finding a balance between safeguarding vulnerable individuals and preserving the appropriate to spiritual freedom.

Both the ACL and Freedom for Faith acknowledged that real cults do operate inside Victoria but insisted that mainstream religious groups shouldn’t be caught within the crossfire of efforts to manage them.

Committee chair Ella George stressed that religious freedoms had been a “top of mind consideration” for the inquiry since its inception. The committee is predicted to deliver its findings to the Victorian Parliament by 30 September 2026. 

The exchange highlights a broader national debate about where to attract the road between protecting individuals from harmful manipulation and respecting freedom of belief. Critics of the ACL’s position argue that the absence of specific laws against cultic coercion leaves vulnerable people without sufficient protection, while faith groups warn that ill-defined laws could criminalise religious conviction itself.

As Victoria continues to navigate this delicate issue, the challenge stays clear: easy methods to curb the influence of exploitative organisations without compromising the elemental right to practise one’s faith freely.