Loveday - if you had looked at the Adelaide Advertiser online poll on this issue you would have seen that about 2/3rds supported Xenophon's actions in naming the Catholic priest.

It is, I think, important to set this episode in it's historical background.
For generations, presumably centuries, some of the priests of the Roman Catholic Church have sodomised the young (and hence powerless) both within the young novitiates and outside within the various parishes. All that I have ever seen indicates that this power driven sodomisation of the weak has been widespread - Europe, USA, Ireland for example.
Consistently the Roman Church heirarchy has avoided the issue, failed to report to the secular authorities. It has to be the worlds greatest and most long standing cover up. In some cases the government has winked at the problem. In Ireland the power of the Roman Church over and within the government was such the the State was well described by Connor Cruise O'Brien as a 'theocracy'.

The conviction within the Roman Church that they are de facto above the law goes all the way back to 'benefit of clergy' more than half a millenium ago.
Currently, all over the world there are people and groups aho are trying to get justice for the evil treatment they endured at the 'hands' of the priests. What chance have they got? There will be scant secular government support, the Roman heirarchy will close ranks even tighter and will obfuscate and delay indefinitely.

Of course, if a complainant keeps the affair within the RC church they might, just might get some compensation. If the go to the police they will get nothing.

It is against this background of repetative evil, compounded by the even greater evil of the cover up that the Senators action may be seen. In particular what evidence is there, currently or historically, that anything in the way of an open investigation will occur?
Which is the greater evil, what may have happened as a result of X's action, or what has happened again and again - power driven sodomy followed by well organised cover ups.

Xeonophan used parliamentary privilege to raise allegations against an individual who is subject to a police investigation. He did this against the wishes of the complainant and in the face of warnings to not use this tactic. What response did the Senator expect and what did he think he would achieve – it would appear no more than raise awareness of the issue per se not help those involved.

There is no evidence the investigation is failing to do its duty, there is no sign of policy failures, there is no evidence the complainant will be helped. An accusation does not equate to conviction or evidence. Let the investigation do its job.

Whether Xenophon is loved or hated, a good or bad Senator is not what needs to be considered. King may be taken as having biases, but a debate on that is not central to this issue.

The central debate is the use and abuse of parliamentary privilege.

Xenophon abused privilege by raising a matter under police investigation against the wishes of the complainant and in the absence of any evidence the matter was being improperly handled. The matter has not been proven. Furthermore, the naming of individuals to make general points is an abuse of privilege in its own right. Individuals are powerless against matters raised in Parliament – Parliament must police itself to ensure individuals are not harmed in this manner.

Parliamentarians are not judges giving verdict. The Senator has abused the complainant in no less a manner than the events which the complaint details.

The Hon John Hogg should refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges for advice.

Parliament is a better place because of Senator Xenophon.

He is not bound by Party Policy doctrines, Factional infighting, Wets/Drys, Others Leadership ambitions or the downward influence of " Cabinet Solidarity".

In other words , he is a True Independant, like Katter but unlike Oakshott et al.

More Power to Xenopon!

Wrong Cronus - the matter was NOT under police investigation and the Catholic church was dragging its feet in SA in contrast to how the chuch had handled similar matters in Victoria. Xenophon was tired of the SA church's obfuscation - he gave them a last chance to act and they did not so he then named the person in parliament.

If Xenophon is an SA hero, it's no wonder 23,000 people a year are leaving for other states.

This is a story about whether Xenophon was right to name someone under Privilege. Is the matter of national importance? Does it involve MP or police corruption, say on the scale of Queensland back in the 80s? No.

Xenophon did it to self-aggrandise because he has done almost nothing in his Senate term (except hold a gun to the head of the nation by not threatening to not pass the GFC money bills) and now his vote is meaningless in a Senate whose numbers fall to the Greens.

He has cleverly crafted a persona of being a battler for the little guy when in fact he has done almost nothing. He hates the ALP, the AFL and people who like a punt.

He is certainly lauded by The Advertiser but The Advertiser isn't so much a newspaper as a gossip sheet. He is the President of the Victim Lobby and will be getting inundated with emails and calls from people who have been victims all of their life.

Xenophon is an anti-politician. An individual who is at ease in criticising the ethics and actions of others (mainly the ALP and an array of church groups) but is far less comfortable when the criticism is aimed at him. He is a sham.