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

Which seeks an inquiry into unconscionable, misleading and deceptive conduct. I thought I was making the point so exceptionally well that it forced Senator Milne to seek to raise a spurious point of order. Those in the gallery listening and those reading the Hansard in the future will note that the allegation I made about the money going into his personal account only bearing his signature was not denied. It is a great sense of disclosure when you can put in $10,000 anonymously. That is disclosure, according to the Australian Greens. But enough of that. All I am saying is that people that want to come to this debate need to come with clean hands. Senator Xenophon does, and I accept that without doubt. I say to some of the others in this debate that their own conduct may not necessarily be in the same category as Senator Xenophon’s.

It is my very strong view that these matters that are complained about should be going to the appropriate authority. I met with a young group of Mormons just the other day. It was interesting. They put in a submission to the Henry tax review about tax deductibility for church organisations. I wonder whether other organisations have done so, because that could have and would have been a good and appropriate vehicle for some of these things to be canvassed. We still await the outcome of the Henry tax review. I will not be holding my breath that we will be seeing that any time soon, but let us hope that we do see it some time before the budget. Given that the Australian people paid for it, I dare say they are entitled to see it as well. Once again, it may be asserted that I digress, albeit slightly.

In relation to the email traffic that has come to my account in recent days, there is a lot of ‘He said’, ‘She said’. ‘My name is being used in public,’ according to one. ‘I categorically deny the allegations’ was the email that came back. Should we, as a Senate, try to set ourselves up as a judge and jury to decide between ‘He said’ and ‘She said’? I do not think so. Unfortunately, that is what we will be asked to do when we have to determine things such as whether people had coerced abortions. For somebody who is about as anti-abortion as one can be, this is a very painful and concerning topic. I do not like abortions full stop, let alone coercive ones. It is a very serious matter.

I recall my time as a lawyer dealing with people that believed they had been coerced into having an abortion by mums and dads who were of the view that if the pregnancy went ahead it would bring shame upon the family. The tears and the heartbreak were just as real, undoubtedly, as those that were coaxed and coerced whilst they were with Scientology. But are we going to have an inquiry into all those coerced abortions? I also know of examples where mainly menfolk—it does not reflect well on us—were coercing girlfriends to have abortions, with similar pain and similar trauma. Do we inquire into those coerced abortions as well or do we say that only when an organisation coerces somebody into an abortion is it worthy of inquiry? We have to be very careful as to the path we seek to go down in relation to these matters.

With these issues, to use terms such as Senator Milne did, that this is a total copout by Senator Chris Evans, does not really add any maturity, any intellectual rigour or, indeed, any compassion to the debate. What I would invite honourable senators to do is to consider the principles.

People are sometimes harassed when they leave organisations. I know it happens from time to time when someone ‘rats’ on their political party. I saw what happened to somebody who left the Greens. I saw what happened to somebody who was a sitting senator in this place when he decided to leave the Australian Labor Party and sit on the crossbenches. Do we have an inquiry into the Greens and the ALP for their harassment of these individuals? Let me say quite clearly that I am sure that that may well have been the case for people who left the Liberal Party as well—that people may well have reacted with a considerable degree of displeasure. I dare say that if former Senator Don Chipp were still alive he might be able to tell some stories about some of the harassment he may have suffered when he left the Liberal Party to form the Australian Democrats. Do we really want to have full-scale inquiries into these things?

The issue is whether the law is being abided by. That is the threshold test. If the tax law is being breached, the case should be taken to the tax office. If employment laws are being breached, the case should be taken to the Fair Work Ombudsman. If occupational health and safety laws are being breached, the case should be taken to Safe Work Australia. And so the list goes on. If there has been false imprisonment, the case should be raised with the police. We have the crime of false imprisonment on our statute books.

In relation to the capacity of people to air their concerns and grievances, I say to you, Senator Xenophon, that you have done a fantastic job. You have aired people’s concerns and grievances exceptionally well. The media have also aired those concerns. They have shown an orange traffic signal—if not a red one—to people, cautioning them that, before they get involved in the Church of Scientology, they may well want to think not once or twice but many times, given the very genuine and heartfelt stories of those who see and quite rightly describe themselves as victims of the Church of Scientology.

I leave my comments there simply to sum up as I began: we accept the sincerity with which Senator Xenophon approaches this matter, but I ask him to accept that men and women of goodwill can look at an issue and come to different conclusions.