This week, the Victorian Parliament’s Legal and Social Issues Committee is expected to table the final report of its inquiry into cults and organised fringe groups.

The report follows an avalanche of survivor testimony, alongside evidence from advocates, researchers, faith representatives and government bodies, which has made it impossible to ignore that Victoria has a serious problem with group-based coercive control.

Strong condemnations and a call to action will be unsurprising features of the report. But will it go far enough in providing findings and recommendations that can affect real and meaningful change?

Here’s a scorecard for measuring proposed policy or legal reforms, based on survivor submissions to the inquiry.

Area	What to look for
1. Behaviour, not belief	Does it recognise group-based coercive control as sustained, cumulative and relational conduct, including non-physical coercion, without attempting to regulate beliefs or define which groups are “cults”?
2. Survivor leadership	Is there a formal and properly supported role for people with lived experience in policy, implementation, service design and oversight, including survivor-led organisations?
3. Specialist recovery support	Is there funded counselling, practical assistance, family support and legal advocacy for people leaving or recovering from coercive groups?
4. Independent oversight	Is there a permanent statutory body with authority to receive confidential disclosures, examine systemic patterns, coordinate agencies, develop standards and report publicly or directly to Parliament?
5. A central response pathway	Is there a clearly designated place to report concerns, supported by lawful information sharing, referral pathways and accountability when agencies fail to act?
6. Early intervention tools	Are there protective, civil and regulatory mechanisms capable of responding to concerning patterns before the high threshold for criminal prosecution is reached?
7. Serious harm accountability	Is there a targeted criminal response, or a clear legislative pathway toward one, addressing sustained coercive control causing serious harm in group-based and other non-intimate settings?
8. Safe disclosure	Are there protections from retaliation, anonymous and third-party reporting, trauma-informed processes and limitation periods that recognise delayed disclosure?
9. Regulators with real teeth	Is there a review and strengthening of the powers of relevant regulators across charities, consumer affairs, health, education, employment, child safety and human rights?
10. Prevention to practice	Is there funded research, public education, frontline workforce training, implementation monitoring and transparent reporting against defined milestones?