"This topic is about child abuse, one of the worst crimes to commit, given that the victims were children".

"No - the story is about the misuse of Parliamentary Privilege".

And the misuse of PP had nothing to do with child abuse - the alleged victim was well into his adulthood when the alleged offence was alleged to occur.

So, as so often happens, (s)he who makes the accusation of straying off topic is in fact the one who is way off topic.

Parliamentarians are granted special protection for their speech in Parliament, in order to ensure they can govern courageously ... even if they're not particularly courageous. It's a very significant dispensation, something not available to any other citizens. The rest of us, and even Senator Xenophon when he's not speaking in Parliament, are responsible for the consequences of what we say. It follows, as a pretty obvious matter of ethics, that Parliamentary Privilege should be used only for the purposes for which it was intended.

Criminal matters are the province of courts, not Parliament. Duh. That's not news to Xenophon, I hope. Again, as a matter of ethics, we don't accuse someone without evidence. If you have reason to believe that someone's guilty of rape, you have exactly one option: hand the matter over to those who are authorised and equipped to decide if prosecution is warranted.

Xenophon hasn't even tried to play by the rules. He's certainly wrecked someone's reputation from the safety of his high position. It'd be a lot less exciting to do the right thing: take the matter to the police. No headlines. And probably no result: allegations of a crime which took place 40 years ago, without witnesses, will take a lot of proving. As it should.

Xenophon hasn't committed a crime. As far as I'm concerned, though, he's abused his position, big time. That, I think, earns him ... contempt.

I don't doubt Senator Xenophon's good intentions.
I'm sure that he meant well and thought that he
was doing the right thing. However it was a bit
pre-mature. As far as I'm aware - no official
complaint has even been lodged with the Church
against this priest, no charges have been laid.
Therefore to publicly name and shame someone in
a case like this - is jumping the gun. The Senator
should at least have waited until charges were
filed.

Lexi

Spot on.

For all my misgivings about the lack of accountability displayed by the church, presumption of innocence remains an intrinsic part of our legal system. Therefore, Xenophon, at the very least should have kept his mouth shut - he most definitely did abuse his political responsibilities.

He could've raised the entire issue of paedophilia within the church, thus gaining greater public attention, but just like Derryn Hinch he saw himself as a vigilante and made a mockery of his privileged position in society. Derryn was charged and found guilty of breaching court suppression orders.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/derryn-hinch-guilty-but-not-sorry-20110603-1fkap.html

People who may have stepped forward with information regarding this abuse of children are less likely if they feel they may be compromised and ditto for the church, whose action on this subject continues to be worse than nothing.

"He could've raised the entire issue of paedophilia within the church,....."

Again, it WAS NOT about paedophilia, but about the alleged rape of an adult man, 40 years ago.

The question is, what is the purpose of parliamentary privilege. Surely in the end the individual Member of Parliament must make her/his own decision as to whether or not the particular issue s/he wishes to pursue is one for parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists for Members to raise difficult issues that are being or have been covered up, and which have no alternative place of airing - in the true sense of the word. It is a question of public interest (not 'the public's interest as in purience, gossip, etc).

When Deidre Gruisovin and Franca Arena - at the time members of the NSW Parliament - raised issues relating to allegations of child sexual abuse they were criticised by their own political party, however, I do not recall that either resiled from her position. That is, having endeavoured to have the issues dealt with through alternative avenues and these avenues having failed or been unsatisfactory, each made a considered decision that she should speak in Parliament. Each made the considered decision that this was an appropriate use of parliamentary privilege. The rationale was, as it appears, that powerful interests were or may have been subverting a just outcome. It was, as it appears, a matter of power, power relationships and whether the powerful should be privileged in voice over the less powerful, the ignored, the powerless.

In one case (Franca Arena) it was a question whether a particular body established to investigate allegations of child sexual abuse had been privileging, in their questioning or recording of the same, persons in powerful positions. This was the query that was raised by her as a Member of Parliament,under parliamentary privilege.

If a person is elected to Parliament, then s/he is elected to, amongst other matters, make considered decisions about the use of parliamentary privilege. As per the above, in the end it is the individual Member who must confront her/his own conscience as to whether the use of parliamentary privilege in the particular circumstance is appropriate.