Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be forced to have a blood transfusion, Senator Brown, because that would be an assault on their body. People do have the right to refuse medical treatment, should they want to. I think it is a dangerous view. I think it is an inappropriate view. But in Australia we allow people to hold such views. In relation to not wanting the help of mental health specialists—those who would be able to assist in the provision of mental health support—similarly, I think that is a dangerous and inappropriate view to hold. But in our free society we allow people to hold silly, bizarre and even dangerous views. That is why we do allow Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. That is why we do allow people, should they want to, to refuse the help of mental health professionals.

I just want to place those matters on the record and remind the mover of the motion and Senator Bob Brown that what seems to be a very innocuous motion is clearly part and parcel of a bigger issue. Senator Xenophon was quite upfront about it, and that is why I accept the sincerity and genuineness with which this motion has come forward. There is an underlying agenda here which is that those who see themselves as victims of cults should be able to air their concerns. It would be interesting to see, given that certain other religions are given tax deductibility status in this nation, whether we would bring them into it as well, especially those who might teach jihad, for example. Would we want to bring those organisations into this?

Would we also want to, potentially, bring in the Wilderness Society? It has an activist who is now running for the Greens in Tasmania. He was captured on TV by Channel 9 trying to organise for a parliamentarian to be forcibly handcuffed to a demonstrator. Would that be a harm, as opposed to a benefit? Given the general terms of this inquiry, anybody with a beef or a concern—some a lot more serious, such as those about the Church of Scientology, and some potentially less serious—could come along to air their grievances about a particular organisation. I could see, with respect, the Privileges Committee of the Senate working overtime to vet the statements of rebuttal in relation to all the allegations that are made. In fact, we had that situation with the Greens allegations against the Exclusive Brethren. I understand that in recent times, following Senator Xenophon’s allegations against the Church of Scientology, the Church of Scientology has sought to respond, to put things on the Senate record rebutting that which has been alleged.

So the real issue then is: is this simply an opportunity for people to air their grievances? I think that is what it is designed to do. I say in fairness that the freedom of the press in this country has allowed that to occur exceptionally well. The question then is: are there illegalities, and is the Senate the right vehicle to pursue those illegalities or is it the Australian Taxation Office, the children’s commissioner, the occupational health and safety authorities et cetera? It seems to me that they are the appropriate authorities to prosecute these matters, rather than having a Senate committee running around as a de facto criminal investigation bureau or police force.

In relation to the tax deductability issue, which is one way of getting at these organisations, are we really saying that people only get involved in the Church of Scientology because that organisation has a certain tax-deductible status? I do not think so. Taking up Senator Brown’s point, do people get involved in the Exclusive Brethren only because of the tax deductibility status?