BishopAccountability.org
	Reaction to Xenophon Naming Priest ABC September 14, 2011 http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3317805.htm [with audio] MARK COLVIN: Senator Nick Xenophon says he is getting overwhelming public support for his decision to name the priest accused of raping John Hepworth about 40 years ago. The Independent MP said that after four years, the Adelaide Catholic diocese had taken too long to resolve the serious allegations satisfactorily. But some fellow Senators have criticised the move, and one leading constitutional scholar says the Senator is guilty of 'trial by privilege'. Peter Lloyd reports. PETER LLOYD: Out in public Nick Xenophon was careful not to repeat the sensational claims he made in the Senate. NICK XENOPHON: These are questions that I've raised. These are issues of process as to whether the complaints made by Archbishop Hepworth have been dealt with appropriately. PETER LLOYD: What has changed by naming the priest? NICK XENOPHON: I think it's very important to discuss issues of process. PETER LLOYD: Nick Xenophon has been claiming the Catholic Church has failed on process, by its slow handling of the rape allegation. But today the tables turned, as the Senator was accused of failing to respect police and legal process. Greg Craven is a constitutional law expert, and vice chancellor of the Australian Catholic University. GREG CRAVEN: It's bad because it's done in the way that it tramples on the human rights of the citizen in a form that they cannot get redress. Normally speaking if you wanted to say something like this about a particular person in any context you would have to run the gamut of defamation laws you would have to make sure it is true, you'd have to make sure that you weren't placing yourself in contempt of court, because of any potential judicial investigation of the matter. All of those things are simply avoided by the expedience of standing up in Parliament and none of those effects can be recalled, because once it's uttered in Parliament, it can be reported in the media and the thing is well and truly out there. That's why it's bad and I mean this is basically a fundamental human rights issue that has involved I think the compromise of a matter, potentially the compromise of a trial; trashing a presumption of innocence; removal of rights to reputation; that is not a good thing. PETER LLOYD: Is this trial by privilege? GREG CRAVEN: Yes it is. I mean we all know that one of the traditional journalistic names for privilege is Coward's Castle. That's a bit unfair because often privilege is used very, very effective form for very, very effective debate. But in this case, what you've effectively had is someone trying to dispose of a matter in a public forum in which they are completely unaccountable for whatever damage they've done. And I think it brings the concept of parliamentary free speech into ill repute. PETER LLOYD: Do you think that Nick Xenophon's actions are those of a man who's hiding in Coward's Castle? GREG CRAVEN: I certainly think that what the Senator has done is an improper use of parliamentary privilege and the preferable course - I note that the Senator has said - that in fact he felt himself morally obliged to say something, that of course may be the case, but it doesn't mean he didn't have a choice; his choice was either to say it in a forum in which he was completely unaccountable, or to be prepared to go out and say it publicly outside Parliament in circumstances where he was accountable and he chose the unaccountable route and he has to wear that. Now tomorrow it could be you, the day after it could be me. There's nothing much you can do to fix it, because it's gone out there. PETER LLOYD: Victims' groups too are critical of Mr Xenophon's actions. Leza Muza speaks for Bravehearts, the Queensland-based campaigners on child sexual abuse. LEZA MUZA: You know I think this is a very sensitive issue but I think we need to ensure that we don't interfere with due process in a police investigation and in fact make it more difficult for the police to prosecute the accused in this scenario. PETER LLOYD: Senator Xenophon's use of parliamentary privilege also earned him a rebuke from fellow Senators. The Liberal Simon Birmingham said "It's not the role of politicians to play police, prosecutor, judge and jury". The Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said using parliamentary privilege circumvented rights and liberties. Harry Evans is the former clerk of the Senate. I asked him how it is possible for an MP to name and shame someone, and get away with it? HARRY EVANS: Well because statements made in Parliament and actions taken in Parliament and in parliamentary committees are protected by the law of parliamentary privilege, which basically means that members of Parliament are able to speak freely and act freely in the course of proceedings without any fear of being sued or prosecuted or otherwise punished for what they say. PETER LLOYD: To some, the South Australian Senator has put himself in the same league of infamy as fellow Senator, Bill Heffernan. Back in 2002, the New South Wales Liberal used parliamentary privilege to make sordid allegations against the openly gay then High Court justice Michael Kirby. BILL HEFFERNAN: I believe that most Australian families would have the view that this judge fails the test of public trust. PETER LLOYD: The allegations were found to be baseless but Senator Heffernan continued to enjoy the support of the Liberal Party and remains in Parliament to this day.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.