Parliamentary Privilege

Julia · 14 September 2011

I expect most of us are now aware of the following story involving Nick Xenophon and his involvement in another case of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church.

September 14, 2011
Breaking news
Senator Nick Xenophon claims public support for priest naming
SOUTH Australian Senator Nick Xenophon says he is receiving overwhelming public support for his decision to name a priest accused of raping Adelaide-based Anglican Archbishop John Hepworth about 40 years ago.
The independent MP said the Adelaide Catholic diocese had taken too long to satisfactorily resolve the serious allegations first aired four years ago.
Senator Xenophon used parliamentary privilege yesterday to identify the priest after the church refused to heed an ultimatum to stand down the priest pending the outcome of an investigation.
The Senator's office says it has received about 100 calls and emails since the naming - and 98 per cent of those were for it. "We've had a significant amount of support for the position Nick has taken, from constituents," a spokesman for the Senator said.
But some Coalition senators have criticised the move.
Liberal Simon Birmingham said parliamentary privilege should be used "cautiously, judiciously, sparingly".
"It's not the role of politicians to play police, prosecutor, judge and jury," he said.
Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said using parliamentary privilege circumvented rights and liberties.
"We've got to make sure that everybody has got a certain presumption of innocence until proven otherwise," he said.
"If you have got the story wrong, then you've done an incredible injustice to the person."
A senior Catholic figure has defended the church's handling of the matter.
The general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Brian Lucas, said Senator Xenophon had failed to make clear the allegations did not involve children.
They related to a claim involving two priests in their late 20s some 40 or so years ago, Father Lucas said.
The church had made the right call in not standing down the priest.
"For someone to stand down ... on the basis of no perceived risk to children doesn't seem at all necessary," he said.
Father Lucas said Archbishop Hepworth should have gone to authorities with his claims. Archbishop Hepworth, 67, revealed at the weekend he was the victim of violent rapes at the hands of two priests and a trainee priest beginning in 1960, when he was 15.
Claims against dead priests Ronald Pickering and John Stockdale were settled in Melbourne.

I'm interested in forum members' views as to whether this was an appropriate use of parliamentary privilege for Senator Xenophon to name the remaining living priest whom Archbishop Hepworth alleges was involved in the sexual abuse he suffered when a young priest.

Senator Xenophon says he was driven to act because the Church has allegedly been 'investigating' the complaint for more than four years and the accused priest is currently practising.

An interesting aspect is that apparently Mr Hepworth clearly requested Senator Xenophon not to name the alleged abuser.
So it would seem Senator Xenophon has taken it upon himself essentially to interfere under the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Surely if Archbishop Hepworth was unhappy with the length of time being taken to investigate his complaint (and quite reasonably so, it would seem) then should he not have taken his complaint to the police?

There may be factors relating to this whole situation about which I'm not aware, but on the face of it, it does rather appear that Senator Xenophon has acted somewhat outside of his accepted role.

Views?

drsmith · 14 September 2011

A politician as judge, jury and executioner ?

No thanks.

banco · 14 September 2011

Given the record of the Catholic Church they have zero credibility when they say allegations of abuse are being handled properly so I don't blame Xenophon for doing what he did.

McLovin · 14 September 2011

I've usually had time for Xenophon but I think what he's done is pretty disgraceful. He's basically condemned a guy as being a rapist on nothing more than hearsay.

drsmith · 14 September 2011

Regardless of the credibility of the Catholic Church (or anybody else for that matter), a politician's role is to make law, not exercise it.

We have courts for the latter.

banco · 14 September 2011

drsmith said:
Regardless of the credibility of the Catholic Church (or anybody else for that matter), a politician's role is to make law, not exercise it.

We have courts for the latter.

How is he making the law merely by naming him?

Boggo · 14 September 2011

Julia said:
I'm interested in forum members' views as to whether this was an appropriate use of parliamentary privilege for Senator Xenophon to name the remaining living priest whom Archbishop Hepworth alleges was involved in the sexual abuse he suffered when a young priest.

Senator Xenophon says he was driven to act because the Church has allegedly been 'investigating' the complaint for more than four years and the accused priest is currently practising.

These dirty disgusting pedophiles who are being hidden by and their disgraceful acts swept under the carpet by these religious groups, in particular the catholic church should be exposed.

As someone who is fully aware of the extremes that this disgusting group will go to to cover up their crimes I wholeheartedly support Nick Xenophon.

Anyone who thinks that he is out of line should have a read of 'The Ferns Report', a member of my family in Ireland is one of the victims in that report.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ferns/

I knew one of the pedophile priests in that report personally (Clancy).
The report really just highlights the tip of the iceberg, the corruption, the secret payments, the threats etc etc to victims, their families, associates and potential witnesses including school teachers (who were too scared to say anything) is so blatant and beyond belief that you would think I was lying if I attempted to explain it.

banco said:
Given the record of the Catholic Church they have zero credibility when they say allegations of abuse are being handled properly so I don't blame Xenophon for doing what he did.

Exactly, they have managed to completely mishandle investigations overseas by dragging it out for years until people just give up caring which is their aim.

McLovin said:
I've usually had time for Xenophon but I think what he's done is pretty disgraceful. He's basically condemned a guy as being a rapist on nothing more than hearsay.

What a stupid statement, I was reading generic comments like this 25 years ago also written by those who had no idea or had an ulterior motive, where there's smoke there's fire.
Unless you know for sure I would suggest you refrain from making such statements as they are usually based on assumptions or misguided generic opinions which can be an insult to those who may be somewhat more enlightened as to how these organisations work.

I would suggest that you read the complete Ferns Report, (imagine the worst of it multiplied by 100) and then see if you still feel the same way unless (of course that your statement is based on 100% fact).

If you are 100% sure of what you say then I humbly apologise for my approach to your comment.

bellenuit · 14 September 2011

Boggo said:
These dirty disgusting pedophiles .....

I am only briefly familiar with the allegations, but apparently pedophilia is not an issue here. Both were adults at the time.

Boggo · 15 September 2011

bellenuit said:
I am only briefly familiar with the allegations, but apparently pedophilia is not an issue here. Both were adults at the time.

That may be case, however the same set of defence systems come into play and this is what Senator Xenophon is highlighting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/tony-walsh-ireland-pedoph_n_798268.html

cynic · 15 September 2011

Boggo said:
That may be case, however the same set of defence systems come into play and this is what Senator Xenophon is highlighting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/tony-walsh-ireland-pedoph_n_798268.html

Let me see if I understand what's happening here:

Firstly, an individual exploits the powers of their position by commiting a sexual crime. After allegations of this crime are brought to light, a religous body compounds the problem by abusing its powers in conducting a sham internal investigation.
Now a Government minister believes himself to be entitled to address this situation by naming and shaming the alleged offender whilst enjoying the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Can you see a common theme here? Can you see how all of these entities have been abusing their powers?

Whilst I have no sympathy for the perpetrators of sexual crimes, I believe that the actions of the minister concerned, represent a far greater menace to our entire society than that posed by any individual sex offender.

If a minister has concerns about the efficacy of law enforcemnet processes, then surely it would be more appropriate to utilise one's privileges in addressing these issues rather than simply naming and shaming one individual.

Tink · 15 September 2011

Wasnt Derryn Hinch taken to Court for naming paedophiles on the radio?

What's the difference?

Though he thought he was doing the right thing - no I dont agree with it.

Knobby22 · 15 September 2011

The priest vehemently claims he is innocent. There are no other accusations for him and it happened nearly 50 years ago.

I suspect he is innocent and the accuser memory is faulty. He was abused but it was others.

Nick was wrong to destroy this man's name in my opinion.

drsmith · 15 September 2011

banco said:
How is he making the law merely by naming him?

It doesn't.

My making law, I was referring to legislating it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation

Boggo · 15 September 2011

Those of you who think that Senator Xenophon was wrong seem to be in a minority.
This is the current poll on the Adelaide Adveriser...

Gringotts Bank · 15 September 2011

As Homer Simpson once said: "Who made you Judge Judy and executioner?" whereupon I LOL'd.

Knobby22 · 15 September 2011

Boggo said:
Those of you who think that Senator Xenophon was wrong seem to be in a minority.
This is the current poll on the Adelaide Adveriser...

Mob rule through the media - not my preference for running the country.

McLovin · 15 September 2011

Boggo said:
What a stupid statement, I was reading generic comments like this 25 years ago also written by those who had no idea or had an ulterior motive, where there's smoke there's fire.
Unless you know for sure I would suggest you refrain from making such statements as they are usually based on assumptions or misguided generic opinions which can be an insult to those who may be somewhat more enlightened as to how these organisations work.

I would suggest that you read the complete Ferns Report, (imagine the worst of it multiplied by 100) and then see if you still feel the same way unless (of course that your statement is based on 100% fact).

If you are 100% sure of what you say then I humbly apologise for my approach to your comment.

I have little faith in the Catholic Church to do anything to prevent sexual abuse, however that doesn't give a politician the right to use parliamentary privlege to make accusations that if said outside of parliament would have him in court for libel. There is a little thing in this country called the presumption of innocence. Why didn't he go to the police with the allegations?

Maybe Mr Xenophon should take your advice...

Unless you know for sure I would suggest you refrain from making such statements

McLovin · 15 September 2011

Boggo said:
Those of you who think that Senator Xenophon was wrong seem to be in a minority.
This is the current poll on the Adelaide Adveriser...

Wow, let me get my foot out of my mouth, the Advertiser has spoken...

Calliope · 15 September 2011

Knobby22 said:
Mob rule through the media - not my preference for running the country.

It doesn't say much for the Advertiser on-line readers. Apparently they have a lynch mob mentality inflamed by their home grown Senator Xenophon.

macca · 15 September 2011

As long as the Senator is prepared to repeat the allegations outside the parliament then I guess that would be OK.

If he won't then he is abusing Parliamentary privilege IMO.

Parliamentary Privilege

Julia

In Memoriam

drsmith

banco

McLovin

drsmith

banco

Boggo

bellenuit

Boggo

cynic

Tink

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

drsmith

Boggo

Attachments

Gringotts Bank

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

McLovin

McLovin

Calliope

macca

Similar threads

Parliamentary Privilege

In Memoriam

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Attachments

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency