The Anderson Report
Appointment of the Board.
This Board of Inquiry into Scientology was appointed by Order in Council made the 27th November, 1963, and published in the Victoria Government Gazette of the 28th November, 1963, No. 931, at p. 3547. The Order in Council was in the following terms:
At the Law Courts, Melbourne, the twenty-seventh day of November, 1963.
The Lieutenant-Governor as Deputy for His Excellency the Governor of Victoria
|Mr. Mack||Mr. Hamer|
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that a Board of Inquiry be appointed to inquire into and report upon Scientology:
Now therefore, the Lieutenant-Governor as Deputy for His Excellency the Governor of the State of Victoria, in the Commonwealth of Australia, by and with the advice of the Executive Council of the said State, doth by this Order constitute and appoint -
KEVIN VICTOR ANDERSON, Q.C.,
to be a Board to inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning Scientology as known, carried on, practised and applied in Victoria and in particular and without derogating from the generality of the foregoing -
- The aims, objects and purposes thereof and whether it is capable of achieving to any and what extent such aims, objects and purposes.
- The persons and organizations by whom and the place or places at which the same is so carried on, practised, or applied.
- The methods, processes, practices, techniques, principles and treatment involved or used or applied in the carrying on, practice, or application thereof.
- The circumstances in which and the conditions under or in accordance with which the same is carried on, practised or applied.
- The circumstances surrounding, the principles involved in, the conditions relating to, and the methods applied in the teaching thereof.
- The nature and amount of fees charged or remuneration received by persons or organizations engaged in the carrying on, practice, application and teaching thereof.
- The instruments, machines, devices or other apparatus used in the carrying on, practice, or application thereof, and the manner of use of and the effectiveness of the same.
- The illnesses or ailments, mental or physical, treated in the course of the carrying on, practice or application thereof, the effectiveness of such treatment, and whether such treatment is in any and what way harmful or beneficial or likely to be harmful or beneficial to the persons treated.
- The advertisements used in the carrying on, practice, or application thereof, and whether the same have been in any and what manner false or misleading, and whether the same should be prohibited, regulated, or restricted in any and what way.
- Whether persons or organizations engaged in the carrying on, practice, or application thereof have indulged in any and what unlawful, improper, harmful or prejudicial practices or activities.
- Whether children under the age of sixteen years have been treated by any and what persons or organizations in the carrying on, practice, or application thereof, the circumstances and conditions under which such children have been treated and whether such treatment has been or was likely to be in any and what manner harmful or beneficial.
- The terms and conditions under which and the circumstances in which persons are engaged for employment and employed by persons or organizations carrying on, practising or applying the same.
Whereof the said Kevin Victor Anderson and al1 other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly.
And the Honorable Rupert James Hamer, for and on behalf of Her Majesty's Chief Secretary for the State of Victoria, shall give the necessary directions herein accordingly.
Clerk of the Executive Council.
Development of Official Interest in Scientology.
For a few years before the appointment of this Board there had been an uneasy stirring in various places in respect of scientology. The harm which scientology was likely to cause has been of continuing and increasing concern to the Mental Health Authority. This Authority, which is the successor in law of the Mental Hygiene Authority, is now constituted under the Mental Health Act 1959, which provides by section 12 that the "The functions of the Authority shall, subject to this Act and the powers of the Governor in Council and the Minister under this Act, be to formulate control and direct general policy and administration in respect of the treatment and prevention of mental illness and intellectual defectiveness, and, in particular, and without affecting the generality of the foregoing
- to make provision for the improvement of the treatment and take measures for the prevention of mental illness and intellectual defectiveness
- to provide for the carrying out of research and investigations in relation to the causation and treatment of mental illness and intellectual defectiveness
The University of Melbourne was also alert to the potential harm which scientology could do to University students and, in 1961 and 1962, the University Student Counsellor became concerned at the attempts being made by scientology to exploit the anxieties of students. Students in their teens and early twenties frequently experience considerable anxiety concerning their courses and the manner in which they are coping with their studies, and this anxiety has been accentuated in recent years by the introduction of quotas, when failure in a year may mean the end of a student's academic career. In most cases such anxieties are normal, and the University of Melbourne has a staff of trained psychologists who act as student counsellors to assist students to cope with their difficulties. There are, however, no short-cut methods, and the University of Melbourne viewed the dangers inherent in scientology so seriously that the Vice-Chancellor on two separate occasions warned students against "city practitioners" who were offering services purporting to be psychological to assist them in their studies. The case of a University student who was attracted by scientology advertisements is dealt with in Chapter 15.
The Australian Medical Association was also alive to the potential harm arising from the activities of the scientologists, and an occasional statement in the press by the Medical Secretary of the Victorian Branch of that Association provoked scurrilous attacks on him by the scientologists.
Melbourne newspapers were also aware of undesirable features of scientology and the daily newspapers declined in 1961 to accept advertisements from the HASI. The Melbourne Truth newspaper made pointed attacks on scientology in a series of feature articles.
There was thus a growing public interest in Victoria in the activities of scientology, which culminated in statements in the Legislative Council by the Honorable J. W. Galbally, M.L.C., and the Honorable J. M. Walton, M.L.C.
Debate on aspects of scientology took place in November, 1963, in the Legislative Council, and a Private Member's Bill "to prohibit the teaching and practice of scientology for fee or reward and the use in relation to such teaching or practice of any apparatus or device for recording or measuring personal reactions, impulses or characteristics" was introduced into the Council by the Hon. J. W. Galbally, M.L.C., on the 26th November, 1963.
On the 27th November, 1963, this Board was appointed in the terms of the foregoing Order in Council.
Sittings of the Board.
The terms of reference required the Board to inquire into, report upon, and make recommendations concerning scientology as known, carried on, practised and applied in Victoria they were in very wide terms which explicitly mentioned many matters and implicitly required the Board to investigate all phases of scientology in Victoria.
The Board sat to receive evidence and hear submissions and addresses on 160 days. The first formal sitting was on the 6th December, 1963, at the Flemington Court House, when counsel appeared for various interested parties, certain formalities took place, and some preliminary evidence was heard. On that day the Board adjourned to the premises of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International (the HASI) at 15759 Spring-street, Melbourne, where counsel assisting the Board tendered in evidence the contents of 35 steel or wooden filing cabinets
and a large quantity of other records of the HASI. These records were left in the custody of Peter Rogers Williams, then the Continental Director of the HASI, on his undertaking to produce them as and when required.
The Board resumed sitting on the 17th February, 1964, in the National Herbarium, Birdwood Avenue, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, and thereafter sat at the Herbarium, except on four days when it sat at Department of Health premises at 19 Park Street, South Yarra, and four days when it sat at Owen Dixon Chambers, 205 William Street, Melbourne. On some occasions, the Board adjourned to the HAST premises at 157-59 Spring Street, Melbourne, and at 2 Coates Lane, Melbourne, to hear evidence, witness demonstration sessions of scientology processing and listen to tape-recorded lectures of the founder of scientology, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard.
The final sitting of the Board was on the 21st April, 1965.
Mr. Gordon Just of counsel (instructed by the Victorian Crown Solicitor) appeared to assist the Board.
Mr. J. R. O'Shea of counsel (instructed by Peter E. and Ewart F. Norris) appeared, until 26th May, 1964, for the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International Limited, Peter Rogers Williams, and Ernest Denzil Stephen Gogerly. On the 25th May, 1964, Mr. O'Shea announced that after the 26th May, 1964, he would not be further appearing before the Board and that Mr. Ian G. Abraham of counsel would be appearing instead. Mr. Abraham appeared with Mr. O'Shea on the 25th and 26th May, 1964, and thereafter he appeared alone for the clients formerly represented by Mr. O'Shea. Mr. Abraham continued to appear until the 30th November, 1964, when, on instructions from his clients, he withdrew from the hearing.
Mr. Warren C. Fagan of counsel (instructed by J. Robertson McMillan and Company) appeared for the Committee for Mental Health and National Security (an unincorporated association opposed to scientology) from the first sitting of the Board until the 6th May, 1964. (See below as to appearance permitted in lieu of Mr. Fagan.)
Mr. M. Ashkanasy, Q.C., with Mr. O'Shea (instructed by Petcr E. and Ewart F. Norris), appeared on one occasion on the 28th April, 1964, for Mr. Peter Rogers Williams.
Mr. Richard Searby of counsel (instructed by Keith Ness and Son) appeared on the 18th May, 1964, for Southdown Press Pty. Ltd., the publisher of the Truth newspaper.
Mr. A. R. Bieske appeared as solicitor, on the 1st September, 1964, for a person whose evidence at that stage was heard in camera.
Mr. Mervyn Kimm of counsel (instructed by Cedric Ralph) appeared on the I 0th September, 1964, for a person concerning whose possible interest in the Inquiry proceedings were held in camera.
Mr. J. F. Hill appeared as solicitor, on the 10th September, 1964, for three persons concerning whose possible interest in the Inquiry proceedings were held in camera.
In neither of these instances did the Board consider the matters raised in camera relevant to the terms of reference, and they were not further pursued.
Mr. B. L. Agapis, solicitor, of Sydney, was given leave on the 7th September, 1964, to appear for David Maxwell Tooley (commonly known as Marcus Tooley) the proprietor of the Australian Centre of Applied Psychology and The American College, both of 21 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Mr. Phillip Bennett Wearne, the executive officer of the Committee for Mental Health and National Security, was given leave on the 27th May, 1964, to appear on behalf of that committee and himself, after Mr. Fagan of counsel ceased to appear for the Committee.
Mr. Douglas Moon was given leave to appear on the 18th August, 1964, in relation to an aspect of the Inquiry which related to him.
Mr. Michael Andrade Birch, the Melbourne representative of Marcus Tooley, was permitted to appear on the 17th August, 1964, on his own behalf.
Evidence and Witnesses
Though the Board was not bound by the rules of evidence, it endeavoured to conduct the Inquiry as nearly as the subject-matter and circumstances would allow, along lines conventionally followed by judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals.
The Board heard oral evidence on oath from 151 witnesses. The names of witnesses who gave evidence in the public sittings of the Board without restriction as to their identity, or whose names may be published without undue embarrassment, are listed in Appendix 1. The names of a small number of persons who gave evidence in public but in respect of whom the Board ruled that their identity be not disclosed are not included in Appendix l, nor are the names of witnesses who gave evidence entirely in camera (except where no undue embarrassment is attendant upon the inclusion of such names).
The evidence of all witnesses was taken in shorthand by the Government Shorthand Writer's staff and transcribed. It comprised nearly four. million words, covering 8,920 pages of transcript. The transcript of other than the strictly in camera evidence accompanies and forms part of this Report.
At all times, including during the in camera sessions, the scientology interests were permitted to be present, to participate in proceedings, to lead evidence and test evidence by cross-examination. This right was fully exercised until the 30th November, 1964, when counsel appearing for them was instructed by his clients to withdraw. Thereafter, they did not seek to exercise such right. The Board was thus denied the assistance of a final address by counsel for the scientology interests, and the burden imposed on counsel assisting the Board was greatly increased.
Unless there were compelling reasons to the contrary, the Board heard evidence in public. There were, however, a number of occasions when the Board considered it proper to sit in camera to hear evidence or submissions of and concerning people and matters, the general publication of which was considered undesirable because of the intimate, personal and embarrassing nature of the subject-matter. At times, the Board sat strictly in camera; on other occasions, though not in camera, the Board directed that the name or any information which might identify a particular person or witness be not published. The Press co-operated, and observed directions given as to non-disclosure of identity in such circumstances.
Though many witnesses gave evidence in support of scientology, very few of them possessed any qualification which entitled them to speak authoritatively on scientific or technical matters. The Board repeatedly pointed out to the scientology interests the notable absence of any credible evidence to justify scientology theories and techniques; however, this deficiency was not remedied.
Some persons with scientific or technical qualifications gave evidence before the Board on behalf of the scientology interests; two of such witnesses were medical practitioners. However, none of these witnesses gave any reliable or acceptable evidence in attempted justification of scientology; and, in particular, neither of the two medical practitioners was able to explain or justify scientology.
Scientology witnesses with scientific or technical qualifications found it impossible to reconcile, and did not attempt to reconcile, their scientific and technical learning with the theories and practices of scientology, but they sought to justify such theories by saying that they were in a different frame of reference from conventional scientific knowledge.
Out of consideration for such witnesses the Board has decided to adopt the course of not separately listing the names of the scientology witnesses mentioned in the last two preceding paragraphs. It is aware that persons who are known to be scientologists have sometimes suffered ridicule and even opprobrium, and it has no desire unduly to expose these witnesses, some of them highly qualified and competent in their chosen professions, to the embarrassment which might be visited upon them should their association with scientology be publicized. They were not scientology practitioners in any real sense but were preclears who had "cognited" to some extent on scientology. Accordingly, Appendix 2 lists the particular qualifications of a number of unidentified persons.
Contrasting with the virtual absence of any reliable scientific evidence in support of scientology was the testimony of an imposing array of highly qualified experts in many fields, whose evidence was to the effect that scientology was entirely unscientific, at variance with well established principles and practices of medicine and other sciences and possessed many dangerous features. Much of this Report will be concerned with the detail of their evidence and the conclusions of the Board drawn from that evidence. These expert witnesses are listed by name, qualifications, and appointments in Appendix 3.
Non-attendance of Hubbard
As the founder of scientology, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was an important figure in the Inquiry. He did not attend, though the Board indicated from time to time that it would have found his evidence informative and important. It appeared early in the Inquiry that Hubbard had no intention of visiting Victoria, having expressed himself as quite satisfied with the manner in which the Continental Director for Australia, New Zealand and Oceania, Peter Rogers Williams, was dealing with the Inquiry.
Subsequently, in October, 1964, the Melbourne solicitors of Hubbard requested the Government to pay the cost of bringing Hubbard from England to give evidence before the Board. This request and a similar request to the Board were refused. The Board is satisfied, however, that Hubbard had no intention of appearing before it. The applications for his expenses to be paid were made, knowing they would be rejected; they were made merely for the purpose of founding a criticism of the conduct of the Board and of this Report. Hubbard's evidence would have been of great interest to the Board; to what extent it would have been of assistance to the Board it is, of course, impossible to say. The Board had before it a very large quantity of Hubbard's writings, and this Report is based to a very substantial extent on these writings. It is not to be expected that Hubbard would have repudiated all that he has been writing since 1950. As this Report will show, he stands sufficiently condemned on his writings. In any event, it was for Hubbard to decide whether or not he attended the Inquiry. His financial resources and those of his organization were more than adequate to defray the expenses of his attendance at the Inquiry. It was his decision alone which resulted in his non-attendance.
The Board received in evidence a vast quantity of documentary material. Though this material is listed as 621 numbered exhibits (see Appendix 4), in fact it comprised many thousands of documents, including books, magazines, brochures, pamphlets, bulletins, policy and other letters, correspondence files, processing files, transcripts of tape-recorded lectures, and a variety of other documents.
As already mentioned, one of the events which eventually led to the appointment of this Board was the debate in Parliament concerning scientology. The Hon. J. W. Galbally, M.L.C., in the course of his second reading speech in the Legislative Council on the 27th November, 1963, said that he was prepared to give evidence before a Board of Inquiry into scientology. In answer to a request by the Board, Mr. Galbally attended before the Board on the 4th May, 1964. Counsel assisting the Board announced that, though Mr. Galbally had stated that he was prepared to give evidence before the Board of his knowledge of scientology, the question had arisen as to whether he was eligible to give evidence and whether the Board had jurisdiction to receive evidence from him, because of what appeared to be the very wide effect of Parliamentary privilege attaching to anything said by a Member of Parliament in the course of proceedings in Parliament. After considering argument by counsel, the Board was of the view that privilege of Parliament attached to the statements made by Mr. Galbally in the Legislative Council, and that such privilege was not that of the member but of the House in which the statements were made. Notwithstanding Mr. Galbally's stated desire to give evidence before the Board and his desire, if he were able, to waive the privilege, the Board considered that it should not allow him to enter the witness box and be sworn and thereafter be questioned concerning the subject matter of his statement in Parliament. Accordingly, Mr. Galbally was not called as a witness.
Because of the importance of the privileges of Parliament, the Board's ruling and the reasons therefor are set out in Appendix 5.
Secondary Sources of Information
As already mentioned, a number of articles in the Melbourne Truth newspaper over a period of about three years had directed attention to the practice of scientology in Victoria. One of the articles indicated that the newspaper had information which would be of assistance to the Board. Accordingly, the Editor of Truth was requested to arrange for the attendance before the Board of such of his staff as might be able to assist the Board. On the 18th May, 1964, the Editorial Director of Southdown Press Pty. Ltd. (the publisher of Truth newspaper) and another journalist employed by that company attended and gave evidence before the Board as to the source of the information contained in certain of the articles above referred to.
The evidence which Mr. Galbally was prepared, but not permitted, to give and the evidence which the representatives of Southdown Press Pty. Ltd. gave would have been and was of a secondary nature. It did not relate to anything which the individuals concerned knew of their own knowledge, but consisted of information which they had received from other sources.
As events turned out, the Inquiry was not handicapped by the non-availability of Mr. Galbally's evidence, as other evidence given before the Board indicated the probable source of most of his information.
Course of the Inquiry At the beginning of the Inquiry, consultation between the Board and counsel resulted in the adoption of a course of procedure whereby the Board would be informed at an early stage of the nature and purpose of scientology. This plan involved calling initially a number
of executive officers of the HASI to explain the principles and practices of scientology. It was further proposed that a number of witnesses who claimed to have benefited from scientology would be called at an early stage to give evidence of such benefits.
There were many other persons who were available to give evidence. They may broadly be divided into two groups:
(a) persons who had formed unfavourable opinions concerning scientology, either because they had formerly been associated with it and had broken away, or because they had observed its effects on other persons. Included in this group was a body of persons who had formed themselves into an unincorporated association which they named "The Committee for Mental Health and National Security.". Its executive officer was Phillip Bennett Wearne, who had formerly been an active scientologist.Shortly after the Board commenced its regular sittings in February, 1964, the exceptionally wide scope of the terms of reference began to be appreciated and it became evident that the Inquiry would be of longer duration than originally expected. The subject-matter of scientology is dealt with in many thousands of pages of books, magazines, and pamphlets and in perhaps 30 million spoken words recorded on tapes. While, of course, the Board did not read and listen to all that material, much of which was repetitive, the subject matter of the Inquiry involved an investigation of a great variety of theories and practices and the effects, good and bad, of those practices.
(b) a number of professional persons - professors, medical practitioners (particularly psychiatrists), psychologists, physicists, scientists and the like whose evidence counsel assisting the Board considered should be heard because scientology purported to deal with a number of subjects which were their specialities.
After some 40 witnesses called at the request of the scientology interests had given evidence in favour of scientology (including Williams, whose evidence to that stage had occupied nineteen days and was not concluded) the Board heard evidence from several witnesses from each of the two categories mentioned above, namely, those opposed to scientology and expert witnesses.
Thereafter, the Board resumed hearing pro-scientology witnesses. At the beginning of September, 1964, the Board, after consultation with counsel, saw the prospect of finishing the hearing of evidence by the end of September or, at the latest, early in October. It was with surprise, therefore, that on the 9th September, 1964, which was the one hundred and first day on which the Board had sat, counsel for the scientology interests complained that "at this stage we have not heard the case of my clients at all, and that one hundred days have been taken up hearing hostile evidence". (This manifestly incorrect statement deserves no further comment than that, at that stage, 56 pro-scientology witnesses had given evidence out of a total of 93 witnesses then heard.) Counsel then announced that he had somewhere in the vicinity of 50 more witnesses whom his clients desired to be called. (These had not even been hinted at when consultations had taken place as to the prospect of finishing the evidence by the end of September or early October.) The additional evidence which it was proposed to call, so counsel said, "ranges from some witnesses who wish to give evidence of a general nature against that already given to witnesses who are medical practitioners and who hold various University qualifications who will be giving expert evidence. They will cover the whole range of matters already dealt with in a way hostile to scientology".
Though the announcement that the scientology interests wanted many more witnesses called was entirely unexpected, the necessity of hearing them was, of course, evident, and thereafter the Board heard evidence from an additional 44 pro-scientology witnesses called at the request of the HASI. The promise that there would be witnesses giving expert evidence in support of scientology had not been fulfilled by the end of November, 1964, when there were no more witnesses whom the scientology interests desired to be called. (The significant failure by the HASI to call any evidence to refute the evidence of the expert witnesses is dealt with in Chapter 7.)
Thereafter, on the 30th November, 1964, counsel for the HASI announced that, upon instructions from his clients, he was withdrawing from further participation in the Inquiry. This was at a stage when all the evidence which the HASI had wanted to place before the Board had been received, and when the only evidence then remaining to be heard was that of one expert witness attending that day and of a few witnesses to be recalled to complete minor details of their earlier evidence.
Co-operation by the HASI
At the beginning of the Inquiry, the HASI hailed the appointment of the Board with great jubilation, proclaiming that the Inquiry would completely vindicate scientology and dianetics. In fact, Hubbard went so far as to declare that the Board had been appointed in response to scientology's demands. The HASI appeared to co-operate in the Inquiry by being represented
before the Board and by complying with requests by the Board for literature and the like. It readily provided facilities for counsel assisting the Board, the Board secretary and an audit officer to examine its records. It presented a number of demonstration sessions of scientology auditing for the instruction of the Board and also provided facilities for the playing of a selection of Hubbard's taped lectures.
It was, however, noticeable that, as the inquiry proceeded, the general attitude of the scientology interests, while appearing to be helpful and informative, tended sometimes to cloud and confuse issues by too great attention to non-essentials and extremely lengthy expositions of certain aspects of scientology. Later reflection suggests the probability that this approach was deliberate and was really designed, notwithstanding the apparent readiness to co-operate, to so exhaust the patience of the Board or so overwhelm it with minute detail that it would be persuaded against prolonging the Inquiry until the conclusion of all relevant evidence. Such a devious plan may well have been inspired by the Brain-washing Manual (a remarkable document often referred to by Hubbard and dealt with at length in Chapters 12 and 28) which scientology appears to have followed in other respects, for that manual gives directions as to "conduct under fire", and directs that one "must have to hand innumerable documents which assert enormously encouraging figures .... Not one of these cases cited need be real, but they should be well documented and printed in such a fashion as to form excellent court evidence". The manual further directs that "In order to defend . . . a great complexity should be made of psychiatric, psychoanalytical, and psychological technology. Any hearing should be burdened by terminology too difficult to be transcribed easily". The manual further directs that:
"Various types of in sanity should be characterized by difficult terms . The actual state should be made obscure, but by this verbiage it can be built into the court or investigating mind that a scientific approach exists and that it is too complex for him to understand. It is not to be imagined that a judge or a committee of investigation should inquire too deeply into the subject of insanity, since they, themselves, part of the indoctrinated masses, are already intimidated .... "Mental Health
The task of the Board in giving effect to the very extensive terms of reference inevitably involved the investigation of certain aspects of mental health, but only so far as they related to scientology and its practice. The terms of reference did not involve investigation into the techniques or practices of psychiatry or psychology as such. From time to time attempts were made by the scientology interests to widen the scope of the Inquiry into a general investigation of the medical profession, or more particularly the practices of psychiatry and psychology, in an endeavour, it would seem, to deflect attention from scientology by attacking orthodox practices of medicine. The Board consistently declined to pursue such irrelevant exercises.
Glossary and Abbreviations
A glossary of scientology terms appears in Appendix 6.
Simplicity may be achieved by the abbreviation of common words, names, and phrases which will constantly recur in this Report. Unless some reason exists for amplification, the following abbreviations will generally be used for the words shown opposite them:
|Com. Mag.||Communication Magazine, official magazine of the Melbourne HASI.|
|Dianetics: MSMH||"Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", the first major work by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard on dianetics.|
|Gogerly||Ernest Denzil Stephen Gogerly|
|Gogerly, Mrs.||Mrs. Catherine Mary Gogerly, wife of Gogerly.|
|HASI||Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, the name given to the scientology organization, which has branches in several countries. This abbreviation, unless the context otherwise requires, will be used generally to refer to the Victorian headquarters of the organization and its administration at 157-59 Spring Street, Melbourne.|
|HCO||Hubbard Communications Office, the organization whereby the founder of scientology keeps in communication with scientologists throughout the world and through which he promulgates directives, &c.|
|HCO Bull.||Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, a bulletin issuing frequently from HCO, containing directives, instructions, exhortations, reports on discoveries, &e.|
|HCO Infm. Lr.||Hubbard Communications Office Information Letter.|
|HCO Pol. Lr.||Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter.|
|HGC||Hubbard Guidance Centre, a section of the Melbourne HASI.|
|Hubbard||Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, founder of scientology.|
|PAB||Professional Auditors Bulletin.|
|Tampion||Ian Kenneth Tampion.|
|Tampion, Mrs.||Annie Tampion, wife of Tampion.|
|Williams||Peter Rogers Williams.|
|Williams, Mrs.||Penelope Elizabeth Berncastel Williams, wife of Williams.|