Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This motion from Senator Bob Brown to inquire into the Exclusive Brethren is not supported by the Labor Party. It has very wide-ranging terms of reference which seek to inquire into all manner of things concerning a private organisation—in this case, a religious organisation. Nevertheless, it is an independent, private organisation—one not controlled by government and not controlled by the parliament. We do not think that is an appropriate role for the Senate to undertake.

We are aware of the publicity surrounding the activities of the Exclusive Brethren. We are aware of some fairly serious allegations about some of that activity and that that has attracted a great deal of media attention. We in this parliament, and certainly those of us in the Labor Party, do not believe we are in a position to make a judgement on those allegations. They are clearly issues that ought to be pursued in appropriate forums if people have concerns.

The key point for us in this debate is not to make a judgement about the Exclusive Brethren because that is a question for others to judge if complaints are made. The key point for us relates to the role of the Senate and the inquiry functions of this chamber. Traditionally, we have seen our role as investigating and inquiring into matters of public policy and public administration—issues that the parliament of Australia ought to be treating seriously and issues that relate to how the government expends its moneys and runs its programs et cetera. That has generally been our practice. By providing that function, I think, the Senate has served the parliament and Australian democracy well.

I think it is a step too far for us to launch an investigation into a particular organisation that is outside of government, be it a religious organisation or any other form of organisation. I think it would set a bad precedent. I am not sure that Senator Brown understands where he takes us and whether, given a government-controlled Senate, that is an advisable path to go down. Senator Abetz complains loud and long about some organisations, and it might occur to him on a future occasion to inquire into them. Anyone who does not support the government is the subject of ridicule and abuse from people like Senator Abetz. I do not know that Senator Brown would welcome Senator Abetz starting a witch-hunt into organisations of which Senator Abetz is a critic. I am not saying Senator Abetz is intending to, but I think that the reality of the government majority in the Senate ought to make Senator Brown think very carefully. The Labor Party, having been the subject of the misuse of power by this government in terms of its use of royal commissions, knows only too well the potential for that abuse. The Labor Party is trying to look at this in the context of the principles that should be followed and the appropriate role for the Senate. Any enthusiasm one might have for a particular organisation being investigated by the Senate ought to be tempered by consideration of the principles the Senate ought to pursue, its function and the appropriateness of what the Senate is doing.

I understand there is no recent precedent for a Senate committee conducting a targeted inquiry into a particular body, particularly a religious body. Our issues are those of public policy and public administration, and from time to time those take us to questions of the roles of various organisations. When we had the very successful inquiries into child migrants, children in care and the stolen generation, those inquiries took us to questions of the administration of care by religious organisations. That was an appropriate public policy issue because it went to the treatment of children in care and the treatment of Indigenous people in this country. And it just so happened that the people administering that care on behalf of government or the community were religious organisations. Their activities were legitimately part of the process of examining those issues. But it was not an examination of the Catholic Church or the Salvation Army; it was an examination of the issues pertaining to the treatment of those children. So I think the basis on which we traditionally operate is very different from what is proposed here.

It is also, I think, more than appropriate for people to look at how public funds are administered. For instance, the churches are huge recipients of public funding through hospitals, aged care et cetera, and it is perfectly appropriate for Senate committees to inquire into how that money is spent, what rules are applied, whether we are getting good value for money, and how those people acting on behalf of the Commonwealth are providing services. Recently we had the question of grants made to the Hillsong Church. It was perfectly appropriate for senators to pursue how those grants were made, whether they were made in accordance with proper practice, and whether the money was administered properly—not because it was a church but because this was Commonwealth money. It is perfectly appropriate for senators and Senate committees to pursue those accountability measures.

Senator Bob Brown’s motion makes no attempt to disguise the fact that this is a reference for an inquiry into a religious organisation. I do not think that is an appropriate use of the Senate’s time, nor would it be seen as an appropriate role for us. We are not a quasi-investigative body. We are not responsible for investigating allegations into the activities of a particular body. I think if we go down that path it would be a very slippery slope. As one of my staff said to me, ‘Next they’ll want an inquiry into the activities of a gay and lesbian group or a trade union, or into the ACF.’ People of different persuasions will have different targets, but the question you have to ask yourself is: is this a proper function of the Senate?

I think there are a range of areas where the concerns that Senator Brown seeks to give voice to could be pursued, but I do not think the Senate is the proper place. If there are concerns about illegality, mistreatment of people or people being held against their will et cetera, those are matters for the police authorities. They are not matters for this chamber. We have no capacity to judge the quality of evidence; we are not a court. So people ought to take those concerns, if they have them, to the police, and we would encourage them to do so.

If there are concerns about the funding of political campaigns, they ought to be raised in the first instance with the AEC. The Australian Electoral Commission is responsible for ensuring proper disclosure and that people’s activities meet normal electoral law requirements. I would hope that the AEC is ensuring that that occurs. Senator Brown raises some concerns, and I hope the AEC has taken those seriously. I must say in passing that I find it a bit strange that an organisation of people who do not vote would be interested in campaigning. At first blush, I thought, ‘Well, that doesn’t sound terribly consistent.’ But I have no personal knowledge of those matters. It seems to me that the relevant body is the AEC, to which any complaints should be made. Similarly, if there are concerns about taxation or financial matters, the first place to start is with the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office.

As for suggestions of federal funding, Commonwealth money, being paid to organisations, that is why we have the estimates committee process. It is perfectly reasonable for senators to pursue those issues there. I would expect Senator Bob Brown, if he has concerns of that nature, to follow those through in estimates. At this stage, the estimates process is still available to senators, although I would not bet my last dollar on that lasting the length of this government. But it is the case that some of these issues can be pursued in that process.

In terms of the arguments about treatment under law, I would just make the point that we are the parliament: we draft the laws, we pass the laws. If there are concerns about how the Exclusive Brethren or any other group is treated under current law, we ought to seek to amend the law. We ought to have a parliamentary debate about that. So, in terms of the application of the law, again I think there are avenues available to senators to pursue those matters.

Effectively, for the matters that are serious, there are relevant authorities. Some of those involve us; senators already have the capacity to pursue some of the issues contained in Senator Brown’s motion. I do treat very seriously the questions of family breakdown and psychological and emotional trauma associated with any practices. As I say, I have no evidence of whether those allegations are well founded or not, but they ought to go to the appropriate authorities. We do not have the capacity to deal with them.

As I found, along with other senators who, like Senator Sandy Macdonald, were involved in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into the effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system—which I think was a very worthy inquiry that did great work and had bipartisan support—our constant struggle was to make clear to people that we had no capacity to judge individual cases. We could not investigate a death. We could investigate the processes, the culture and the mechanisms for redress, but we could not come to conclusions about individual cases. We are not a court of law. People always wanted us to make judgements on their particular cases, but we could not do that and that caused a tension that underpinned the inquiry. Having said that, I think we did a really good job, and the Senate did a really good job in progressing that report. But we were never able to deal with individual cases in the way that some people wanted us to, because we cannot do that. That is not our role. We could deal with the public policy issues of military justice—about applying fairness and equity to people who are members of the military and ensuring that the system supported them as much as possible.

I note that the terms of reference in Senator Bob Brown’s motion also include ‘any related matters’. I must say it looks a bit like a witch-hunt. Whatever one’s views, it has that feel, and I do not want to be part of that. I am happy to follow up any public policy issues that are relevant and I am happy for senators to pursue those in the parliament through estimates committees and inquiries into public policy matters in which the Exclusive Brethren might be involved, but I do not think this inquiry is an appropriate use of the Senate’s functions and therefore we will not support it.

The final point I would make is that it is pretty hard to have an inquiry into an organisation that does not cooperate, and I suspect from what I have read of the correspondence and submissions from members of the Exclusive Brethren that they are not exactly going to be overjoyed about participating in any inquiry Senator Brown or any other senators might like to make into them. So I am not sure that, even on a practical level, this will go very far. You would obviously hear from people who are in dispute with the brethren or who had bad experiences or complaints, but I am not sure that it will be a very fruitful inquiry beyond that.

Basically, Labor’s view is that a term of reference for a Senate inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren is not justified on the basis of our view of the Senate’s function. We do not think it is appropriate for us to be conducting an inquiry into a private, in this case, religious organisation. There are other avenues to pursue various points of concern that Senator Brown has listed in his motion. Some of those are available to him within the parliament, and I will certainly defend his right to raise these issues within the appropriate forums. Some of the matters really are a matter for the police, the AEC or for the Taxation Office; concerns in those areas ought to be referred to them. Labor will not be supporting the motion.