In the Name of the Father: Part 2, by Kimberley Ramplin, ABC/The Drum, December 1, 2011

In the Name of the Father: Part 2

By Kimberley Ramplin
ABC/The Drum
December 1, 2011

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3706284.html

In September, I wrote a post for The Drum about Senator Nick Xenophon's decision to name, under parliamentary privilege, a South Australian Catholic priest for the alleged sexual abuse of Traditional Anglican Communion Archbishop John Hepworth.

At the time, I expressed grave reservations about Senator Xenophon's actions for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that this great protection, afforded to no other citizen barring those standing on the floors of our parliaments, must be exercised with a great deal of prudence. While the priest was given the opportunity to respond to Senator Xenophon's statement by the Senate Privileges Committee, what is recorded on page 5,804 of the Senate Hansard cannot be expunged. I also believe he had gone against Archbishop Hepworth's express wish that his alleged abuser not be named in Parliament.

Almost three months have passed, and the South Australian Catholic Church's investigation has found no substance to Archbishop Hepworth's allegations. Archbishop Hepworth does not accept the findings of Michael Abbott QC, and maintains that any Church investigation should have taken place outside the state. He has now decided to take his complaint to the South Australian police - a move he says he wishes he had never had to take.

Anyone who lives with the pain and sorrow of sexual abuse and violence has the fundamental right to deal with their experiences privately or publicly. It's a deep-seated belief; as I wrote in September, I made a choice to tell my story; whereas I felt Senator Xenophon indulged in the de facto exercise of Archbishop Hepworth's choice.

As much as he may wish it a step he didn't have to take, I admire Archbishop Hepworth for taking the case to the police, and wish him well in his fight for justice and peace. He is a braver soul than me. However, a small part of me feels something for the priest he alleges sexually assaulted him. His name is forever on the public record, vision of him shown again on last night's news, not because he has been charged with a crime (NB: at the time of writing), but because of the laws governing the reporting of statements made under parliamentary privilege.

Senator Xenophon took away Archbishop Hepworth's choice. An innocent man's reputation may have been irreparably damaged; or a trial potentially prejudiced. In any case, in my eyes, he's committed an injustice and served no-one but himself.