Understanding the coercive practices of high-control groups

Some arrive searching for community, drawn by the promise of belonging and purpose.

Others are born into them, with family ties leaving no room for choice.

Only later do many realise the cost: freedom surrendered, families broken and futures quietly stolen.

These are the stories the Legislative Assembly’s Legal and Social Issues Committee is hearing in its inquiry into the recruitment methods and impacts of cults and organised fringe groups.

The focus is not on the beliefs of these groups but on behaviour – the coercive and manipulative practices that recruit, control and harm.

What makes this inquiry unique is the way it has chosen to listen.

Alongside public hearings and submissions, the Committee offered a confidential online questionnaire. The response was overwhelming: 317 people spoke, many for the first time.

Anonymity gave survivors courage.

‘For many people who’ve had experiences in cults or other high-control groups, this might be their first opportunity to share what’s happened to them and their family members,’ said Committee Chair and Member for Lara, Ella George.

‘The lived-experience evidence is invaluable to our inquiry.’

Survivor testimony outlined the blueprint for recruitment.

New members are often welcomed with warmth and affirmation, made to feel special. Over time, that attention gives way to control, as individuals lose contact with their former lives and support networks.

Fear plays a central role. Many groups weave in apocalyptic beliefs, warning members that the outside world is dangerous, corrupt or doomed.

Investigative journalist Richard Baker, who gave evidence during the Committee’s public hearings, explained that this ‘carrot and stick’ approach pairs the threat of eternal punishment with promises of safety and salvation for those who comply.

Leaders reinforce these messages by pointing to conflict, disasters or uncertainty in the wider world as proof of their teachings.

Baker described how this cycle of fear and reassurance builds dependence, making members willing to obey, no matter the personal cost.

‘You are conditioned, and it’s demanded that you basically hand over your personal sovereignty to a leader,’ Baker said.

Recruitment is not always about drawing in outsiders. Many are born into these groups, raised in the same environment as their parents and grandparents.

Generational membership deepens loyalty and makes questioning or leaving challenging.

Others are drawn in at vulnerable life stages – adolescence, grief, illness or financial stress. Whatever the pathway, once inside, leaving becomes extraordinarily difficult.

Survivors described how walking away often meant being shunned by their own parents and siblings, cut off from the only community they had ever known.

‘If you imagine you’ve been in a religious cult and all of a sudden you’re on the outer, on your own, and your family’s in there and they’re not talking to you, or they’re not allowed to talk to you, you’re pretty vulnerable,’ Baker said.

For some, leaving felt like exile, compounded by the lasting effects of religious trauma and spiritual abuse.

Among the many testimonies, the voices of women highlighted distinct concerns.

Former cult members told the Committee they were steered into domestic roles and warned that higher education or professional careers were off-limits.

Their futures had already been written: marriage, children, obedience.

These restrictions, framed as spiritual duty, left women vulnerable to poverty and exploitation.

Ella George pointed to evidence from the inquiry's first public hearings with former Geelong Revival Centre member Catherine Carey.

‘Catherine reflected on her experience of wanting to be a perfect housewife, of not seeking further education for herself, and the prospect of her daughters not being able to,’ she said.

Many questionnaire respondents echoed similar concerns - generations of women trapped in dependence and denied opportunity.

The questionnaire revealed that coercion was not only about rules on dress, movement or speech, though those were common. At its core, it was about eroding autonomy until people no longer believed they had choices.

‘They literally became a puppet, and you could see the lights go out…,’ one questionnaire respondent submitted.

Alongside personal testimonies, Deputy Chair and Member for Euroa, Annabelle Cleeland, noted the inquiry is also probing legal and regulatory gaps that allow high-control groups to avoid scrutiny.

‘We’ve been asked to consider how laws and systems, including areas like tax regulation, might better prevent harm,’ she said.

Baker explained that some religious organisations register as ‘basic religious charities’ under federal law. This status grants generous tax concessions while shielding them from financial reporting requirements.

‘There’s very little accountability over how much money is in there, so it creates an atmosphere where people are giving over money and getting very little transparency back,’ he said.

Often, the same leaders who control trust funds also collect tithes and donations without informing members how the money is being used.

Members are conditioned to surrender income while being told that asking questions signals a lack of faith.

For those already stripped of independence, financial control becomes another chain.

For the broader community, it means a loss of tax revenue – public money effectively diverted to groups that often preach separation from the society funding them.

Baker questioned whether ‘advancing religion’ should remain a blanket justification for concessions, suggesting instead that a public benefit test could ensure that groups receiving privileges also demonstrate genuine contributions to the community.

Another theme to emerge from the inquiry is the parallel between coercive control in intimate relationships and the patterns observed in cults.

‘There’s already a template there,’ Baker said.

Victoria has already moved to recognise coercive control in domestic settings. Extending this framework to high-control groups could generate stronger protections, ensuring the law reflects the manipulation and fear that keep people trapped.

The Committee now faces the challenge of balancing the need for protection with the freedoms of religion, association and belief.

Australia’s democracy prizes these freedoms, but they must not be used to justify practices that strip individuals of autonomy and safety.

Ella George stresses that while this is not an issue exclusive to Victoria, the inquiry is the first of its kind in Australia.

Public hearings are continuing, with the final report due by 30 September 2026.

Whatever the outcome, the inquiry has already changed the conversation.