Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I am grateful to you for doing that. I also seek leave to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Leave granted.

I rise to follow up on my comments from last night regarding the Catholic Church in South Australia's mishandling of sexual abuse claims made by Archbishop John Hepworth. Last night I explained that John had been the victim of horrendous sexual assaults by members of the Catholic Church when he was a child and a young man. As I detailed last night, Mr Hepworth was repeatedly raped at various times over a 12-year period beginning when he was 15. The assaults involved two priests and a fellow seminary student who was later ordained. Two of the rapists, Ronald Pickering and John Stockdale, who raped John while he was under 18, are deceased. The third priest, who raped John from on or around the time he turned 18, is still alive.

Last night I expressed my concern that despite being told of the abuse in 2007 and receiving a detailed six-page statement in March 2008, Monsignor David Cappo from the Catholic Church in South Australia told John Hepworth this year that the investigation was still at 'a preliminary stage' because, incredibly, he claimed John had not lodged a formal complaint. I said last night I find this response to be both troubling and inadequate. Today my concerns about this response are even greater as it has been pointed out to me that under section 11 of South Australia's Children's Protection Act 1993 ministers of religion are required to report to police any physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse or neglect of a child, unless these abuses are disclosed in the confessional.

The response by the Catholic Church in South Australia does not compare well with the response from the Catholic Church in Melbourne, which through the Melbourne inquiry process has taken the crimes committed by Ronald Pickering against John Hepworth incredibly seriously. The independent commissioner under the Melbourne inquiry process, Peter O'Callaghan QC, took just 18 months to resolve the matter and allowed Archbishop Hepworth to speak openly about the abuse and the resolution process. Mr O'Callaghan QC also accepted in this report that John had suffered 'many other instances of sexual abuse by members of the clergy in South Australia'. The Catholic Church in Victoria has provided an apology and some financial compensation to John Hepworth. Yet more than four years later Archbishop Hepworth is still waiting for the Catholic Church of South Australia to take the appropriate steps needed to investigate this matter properly.

One of those steps would involve placing the priest John says raped him on administrative leave until the matter has been resolved, and I note John Hepworth has today said he would prefer this to happen rather than having the priest named. So would I, but that would require the Catholic Church in South Australia to agree to this. Make no mistake: I would much prefer for Archbishop Philip Wilson to be dealing with his own clergy appropriately rather than forcing this step to be taken. Currently this priest is still leading a parish in South Australia, a situation that would not occur in other jurisdictions given the serious nature of the allegations and the credibility of the man who is making them.

Last night I questioned the appropriateness of the appointment of Monsignor David Cappo to the federal government's Mental Health Commission given his handling thus far of the issues surrounding the abuse of Archbishop Hepworth. I also call on the Catholic Church in South Australia to follow the protocols of other Catholic churches where in the ordinary course of events, if plausible accusations are made, the priest involved is stood down on administrative leave unless the allegation is demonstrably frivolous and the claims are investigated.

Having spoken at length to John and given his standing in the community and his credibility, I cannot believe anyone could argue these serious and detailed claims are demonstrably frivolous. Further persuading me of the merits of these allegations are the findings of Peter O'Callaghan QC that there were 'many other instances of sexual abuse by members of the clergy in South Australia of which John was a victim'. Add to that the fact that the Catholic Church in South Australia has now retained a prominent Adelaide QC to investigate the issue and it becomes clear these allegations are very serious and warrant immediate and appropriate action.

In fact the status of that inquiry is also a point of considerable confusion. It has variously been reported in the past few days as having begun months ago, or having begun in February, or being only in the preliminary stages. Today I was told by lawyers acting for the church that the appointed QC had not actually begun considering evidence. As processes go, this seems fundamentally flawed or at least unacceptably haphazard. A proper process would include the immediate standing down of the priest in question but, as I said, this is something that the Catholic Church in South Australia, as conveyed to me through their lawyers today, are unwilling to do. Last night I made it clear that, if the Catholic Church in South Australia did not stand this person down as other jurisdictions would do under these circumstances, I would feel duty bound to name the priest involved in the Senate this evening.

In the process of discovering what went on in relation to John Hepworth, I have become aware of the name of the third person he says violently raped him. This creates a serious moral dilemma for me because it has put me, as a representative of the people of South Australia, in a situation where I have privileged information, and the problem with privileged information is that it can be misused to benefit only a select few. The question is: do the people who attend this priest's parish have a right to know that serious allegations of sexual assault have been levelled against their priest and that these allegations have stood unproven but also unchallenged for four years? Do these parishioners have a right to know what the leadership of the Catholic Church in South Australia has known for four years?

Perhaps the most important question is: if my family attended this church, and if church leadership had refused to stand the priest down pending a proper investigation, would I believe I had a right to know? Would I be angry that a few people knew that serious allegations had been made and they did nothing and said nothing?

As a lawyer I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence and, by revealing the name of the priest, I want to make it clear that these allegations remain allegations at this stage. I spoke to John Hepworth today and made it clear that, if the Catholic Church in South Australia refused to stand down this priest pending an appropriate investigation, I would identify the priest in the interests of the wider parish. John told me he understood this and he understood that this was my decision to make.

The allegations are serious. They are made by a man with credibility and they have not been appropriately acted upon by the Catholic Church in South Australia. The people of the Brighton parish have a right to know that for four years allegations have been outstanding that priest Ian Dempsey raped John Hepworth, and that church leadership has failed to make appropriate inquiries into this matter and that church leadership has failed to stand this priest down as a matter of course while inquiries take place.

Mr President, I do not provide this information to the Senate lightly. But ultimately I believe that, given the inaction of the Catholic Church in South Australia by not setting up a proper process or standing the priest down, they have created a situation where an appropriate duty of care has not been shown to the parish. This could have been avoided. In other jurisdictions, or even in other circumstances within the Catholic Church in South Australia, this would not have occurred because a priest would have been stood down as a matter of course pending an appropriate investigation.

I now call on the Catholic Church in South Australia to act with the fairness, certainty and sense of urgency that has been sadly lacking for the last four years. This issue needs to be resolved in the interests of John Hepworth and all victims of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse flourishes because people keep secrets. As a representative of South Australia, this was a secret that—in good conscience—I did not feel I could, or should, keep.

Senate adjourn ed at 21:4 8