Xenophon Overstepped the Mark on Parliamentary Privilege, Sydney Morning Herald, September 15, 2011

Xenophon Overstepped the Mark on Parliamentary Privilege

Sydney Morning Herald
September 15, 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/xenophon-overstepped-the-mark-on-parliamentary-privilege-20110915-1kao0.html

[with video]

There was scant support in Canberra for Nick Xenophon's decision to accuse in the Senate a former head Catholic chaplain of the navy of rape.

It was very hard to find anybody in Parliament House who thought Nick Xenophon had done the right thing when he named an alleged rapist.

His fellow South Australian, the Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, articulated what most others were saying. That Xenophon, or the alleged victim Archbishop Hepworth, should have gone to the police.

‘‘I have a lot of respect for Nick but I don’t respect what he did....,’’ Birmingham said yesterday. ‘‘I think Parliamentary privilege is just that – it’s a privilege. It’s to be used cautiously, judiciously, sparingly. It’s not the role of politicians to play police, prosecutor, judge and jury and I am concerned that it appears that Nick has perhaps overstepped that mark on this occasion.’’

Monsignor Ian Dempsey addresses the congregation in Adelaide’s St Francis Xavier Cathedral.

Hepworth did not want the police involved. He just wanted the Catholic Church to do the right thing.

He was happy for Xenophon to do what he did but he was not demanding it.

Monsignor Dempsey denied the allegations and then took a month’s leave. Xenophon claimed vindication and was flooded with support from the public. The alleged rape took place 45 years ago when both men were in their 20s.

In Xenophon’s home state, there was a fresh precedent that should have directed his actions. Two weeks ago, the SA District Court placed a former high-profile school teacher on a three-year good behaviour bond after being found guilty of underage sex with a school student in 1984.

The student, now a grown man, complained about two years ago. The police investigated, and under South Australian law, somebody accused of a sex crime cannot be named unless committed to trial.

This is designed to protect the innocent from being smeared for life.

Had the Hepworth incident been referred to the police and the allegations taken to trial, the priest would have been named and the Church rightfully shamed for its inaction.

Xenophon circumvented that whole process by naming Dempsey in Parliament as if there were no other option. He did so because he was angry at the Church and he trusted Hepworth who is a good man with a sad past of admitted abuse by others.

But what if Dempsey is innocent or the alleged incident not as clear cut as Xenophon told the Senate?

For example, Xenophon’s rationalised his actions by saying the church had failed to act on a complaint nmade four years ago, yet Hepworth has now told the Herald that he gave signed approval for an investigation in February this year.