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

I will not go over old ground in summing up the debate on this motion, but I want to make this clear to my colleagues: mark my words that, if this vote goes down, I will be talking about it again in the first sitting week after the break. There will be another motion. This issue will not go away.

I thank my colleagues for their contributions. Senator Milne, thank you for your support and for the compassion that you showed to Janette Lang yesterday. I am very grateful for that. I am also grateful for the contribution of Senator Evans, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who spoke on this motion today. He said a number of things that indicated to me that the language of the government on this issue has shifted in the last week. Last week the government was saying, ‘We’ve got the Henry tax review; we’re not going to look at this.’ That was it, basically. I do not take issue with that. The government is entitled to go down that path. But I think there has been a shift in the government’s language. There is genuine concern about what is going on in the Church of Scientology and about whether the laws of this nation are adequate to protect those people who are victims of the Church of Scientology, both those who have escaped from the Church of Scientology and those who are still in it.

I will refer to the contribution of Senator Abetz in more detail in a moment, but there is consistency between the government and Senator Abetz in that they both opposed a past motion on the Exclusive Brethren and now oppose a motion on the Church of Scientology. But sometimes consistency can be bad if you are consistent for the wrong reasons. Senator Evans says that we should use the Senate committee process wisely to look at issues of public policy, public administration and matters in the public interest. I think that fairly summarises the position of Senator Evans. Surely it is in the public interest to look at these allegations in the context of whether the laws of this nation are adequate to protect people in cases of horrendous abuses of their human rights and where they have become destitute because they have worked for an organisation for years and years for a pittance. Surely it is in the public interest to look at whether our consumer protection laws can afford protection in relation to serious allegations where people have lost everything.

We have had an inquiry into occupational health and safety matters at Australia Post. The fact that Australia Post is a statutory body does not mean that we should not have an inquiry into the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology is still a separate organisation. There were specific allegations relating to Australia Post, and the Senate thought that it should go down the path of an inquiry into occupational health and safety issues there. But the matters raised here in relation to the Church of Scientology are much more serious.

Regarding Senator Evans’s comment that we are not a court of law, that is true—it is axiomatic: we are not a court of law and we are not here to make judgments of guilt or innocence. But, if a Senate inquiry heard evidence about alleged criminal conduct, or conduct that may not be criminal under our current laws but begs the question of whether, firstly, laws are being adequately enforced or, secondly, there ought to be some fundamental law reform, surely they are matters in the public interest. It is not for us to make findings of guilt or innocence—that is not our job. But, if allegations are brought forward, it begs the question of whether our laws are adequate. If they are not adequate we ought to look at law reform. That is what we should be doing here.

This is about allegations not just of criminal behaviour but of unconscionable behaviour such as psychological harm that are not covered by our laws, and that should be an issue for this inquiry. This is a serious public policy issue. I know what the position of the government and the opposition is, but I implore my colleagues to think of it in these terms. If we have an inquiry we will hear from a number of victims of the Church of Scientology. That might take a day or two of hearings. No doubt we will hear from the Church of Scientology, because they have been outspoken and they had a right of reply, which they exercised, to the comments that I made about that organisation a number of months ago. That is a fair and right thing to do. If the Church of Scientology says, ‘We don’t do these sorts of things; we think it’s wrong and outrageous,’ then surely they will not have a problem with our laws being changed to protect people from the circumstances that have been alleged. I think that the language of the government has changed in relation to this and I undertake here and now to engage with Senator Evans and other members of the government to see if there is a way forward so that these legitimate grievances can be dealt with such that people can have a voice and actually get some justice.

At the meeting this morning it was interesting to see how the Church of Scientology treats this place and the laws of this nation. It has a separate court system which strikes terror into the heart of anyone who is a member of the Church of Scientology. I spoke to a woman recently who was dragged before a so-called court process for days and days and days—a kangaroo court set up under the rules of the Church of Scientology. It was interesting that today a couple of goons from the Church of Scientology were in attendance, as I understand it. They were busy taking photographs of people at the very peaceful, civil meeting of former members of the Church of Scientology. They were quite happy to take photos of members of parliament as well. These people think they are above the law and they are not.

I am grateful for Senator Abetz’s time yesterday and the genuine and sincere way that he met with and discussed the concerns of former members—Liz and James Anderson and Janette Lang. I am very appreciative of that. Senator Abetz is right: you can have goodwill on an issue and there are different ways of approaching it. I am glad he will call on the Fair Work Ombudsman to look at these matters and will take it up at estimates. But I suggest to Senator Abetz that current laws are not adequate when you deal with this organisation, because, if you speak out or make a complaint, you are cut off from your family—you are cut off from every support mechanism that you know. You are left completely alone, and that raises some big issues and big public policy questions. But, again, I am grateful to Senator Abetz for taking this up and seeking the intervention of the Fair Work Ombudsman also. I congratulate him for doing so.

Senator Abetz raised some tax issues. Again, I appreciate the context in which Senator Abetz raised these matters. They were raised in good faith and with goodwill and I do appreciate that. But, on the whole issue of our current taxation law, the decision of Justice Murphy—former Senator Murphy—in the High Court back in 1983 was quite transparent. It effectively indicated that you basically can get these tax benefits; we do not care what the norms are or what you believe in—that is it. I think that we need to look at the UK’s public benefit test. Senator Abetz raised the issue of ‘he said, she said’, particularly in relation to coerced abortions. I appreciate his genuine and passionate views in relation to this. My views are different: I believe that current abortion laws should stay as they are, particularly in my home state. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but I also believe it should be a true choice and a free choice. And what we have heard about this organisation is that it is not. It was quite chilling to see the interview of Tommy Davis, spokesperson for the Church of Scientology in Los Angeles, by Four Corners. He said that if you are in the Sea Organisation—the Sea Org, their elite organisation—you cannot have children. The way he said it was quite chilling: ‘You cannot have children.’ How do they effect that? They put incredible pressure on women and on their partners to have an abortion. If you are in the Sea Org or, indeed, in other parts of Scientology and you have a child, you lose everything. My plea to Senator Abetz is that, if he is concerned about a ‘he said, she said’ approach, and if genuine concerns are raised, let’s look at that whole issue of forced abortions against the adequacy or inadequacy of our current criminal law on psychological harm and related matters.

Regarding harassment, Senator Abetz made the point that if you leave a political party you can be harassed. I saw some of the treatment that two members in the Legislative Council of the South Australian parliament got when they left the Labor Party—and I am sure it happens when you leave other political parties on both sides of the fence. That harassment might be a bit of abuse or vilification. What we are dealing with here is people being followed around the clock. They have people directly in their face. They are photographed. This morning, outside the front of Parliament House, one man told me how his house was under siege for 10 days. There was either a car outside or he was followed. That is not an uncommon story. I do not think anyone can reasonably say that any major political party would do that to their former members. They might give them some stick and a bit of grief, but nothing like this systematic abuse of people’s rights.

I want to thank again the senators, MPs and staffers who have taken the time this week to talk to victims of Scientology. One of the main reasons so many victims tell me they want an inquiry into allegations of abuse within Scientology is that they believe there is some sort of therapeutic benefit in speaking out. As they emerge from an organisation whose very existence appears to rely on secrecy, they say they achieve real benefit from having someone publicly acknowledge their suffering. But it is much more than the therapeutic benefit, that cathartic benefit, of speaking out. It is because what is raised raises fundamental issues as to whether the laws of this nation need to be changed to protect individuals—whether we need to have that reform.

I expect that some senators have genuine reasons for wondering whether a Senate inquiry is the right way forward. One concern that has been raised with me is that a Senate inquiry could somehow be seen to be some kind of religious witch-hunt. Nothing could be further from the truth. I understand the fears, but I truly believe those fears are baseless. The terms of reference in this new motion specifically say that the inquiry is not to examine the beliefs of Scientology, only the behaviour of its members. It is there in black and white. I ask my fellow senators to consider what a slavish adherence to this stance might mean. If the Senate says we cannot inquire into the behaviour of any organisation if it claims to be a religion, haven’t we just given the green light to anyone who wants to be able to abuse others without scrutiny, without any accountability? Haven’t we just told those people, ‘Do what you like, abuse people, coerce abortion, commit fraud, exploit children, break up families, incarcerate followers, and as long as you call yourself a religion you can guarantee that we will look the other way’? That may not be what this parliament is saying, but I can tell you that is what some people are hearing. Is that what we were elected to do?

Other senators have argued that if there is evidence of criminal activity people should go to the police. The problem is that in a number of jurisdictions in this country some abuses are just not illegal; that the current Criminal Code, our laws, has not kept up with the behaviour of these organisations. I have said that Janette Lang bravely spoke yesterday, and I read her full statement into the Hansard. She spoke yesterday just a few metres from here in the Senate courtyard about how she was forced by Scientology bosses and by her Scientology boyfriend to have abortions. She was told that if she did not she would be cut off from her religion, her contacts, her support network and her husband and she would die of cancer. As she put it, it was her baby, her body, her choice, and Scientology took that all away from her.

Is this appalling? Of course. Is this illegal? In most places in Australia, the sad truth is probably not. What do you think would happen to Janette if she showed up at your average suburban police station with her story? Does anyone think seriously that there could be an investigation, let alone charges? The problem, as I see it, with being here in this place is that we can all be lulled into a false sense of security. There is a danger of thinking that just because we pass a law or another parliament passes a law it will be enforced. But, for most people, life does not happen in here; it happens out there. Out there, the victims of Scientology have suffered in silence for decades.

The criminal law safeguards that some are quoting in here have not protected anyone out there. There are defects and people fall through gaping cracks in the system. Others have suggested that critics pursued by Scientology should use stalking laws to protect themselves. But what happens if you are followed by a different person from the same organisation every day? There are no laws in this country to deal with institutional stalking like that. Yet critics of Scientology, ex-members and journalists say that is what happens. What are the victims to do then?

The truth is that most politicians will, if they really want to, be able to find an excuse not to act, but over time excuses wear thin especially with victims who continue to suffer. But I do want to acknowledge Senator Evans and Senator Abetz and the very considered way they have put forward their position. I think there is a shift, a shift in the major parties in dealing with this, because they know this issue will not go away. The victims of Scientology just want the opportunity to speak out safely. One suggestion was that the victims turn to the media. Some have, and some will continue to do so. I promise you all now that I will help them as much as I can. But let us not pretend that the media do not get worried about long and expensive, albeit groundless, law suits that could cost a network millions of dollars and years of litigation, even when the stories are 100 per cent true.

Remember: this is an organisation that has spent tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, of dollars over the years silencing its critics in the courts. Ex-members say that Scientology sees the bankrupting of a critic as a victory. Ex-members and other critics have also claimed to have been followed, harassed, blackmailed and threatened after speaking out. Don’t we have an obligation to find a way to allow victims of Scientology to speak out safely? If we do not find a way to listen that will protect them, who will?

Let me be clear. If this motion goes down, I will come back in the next sitting week with another motion, and if that goes down I will come back with another and another. I will also continue to engage with my colleagues—with Senator Abetz, with Senator Evans—about a way forward. If there is another way forward to deal with these grievances, then I will be happy to hear it and work collaboratively with my colleagues on this. From what I am being told privately, I believe those stories of suffering are starting to cut through with many of my colleagues, and I understand why. My office and I have been listening to these heartbreaking stories for the last six months, so my challenge to my fellow politicians is simple: if you vote this down, if you say no today, please come back to me and talk to me about a way forward. The victims of Scientology want to be heard and I believe they deserve to be heard. It is time for all of us to stop thinking of new ways to say no and start thinking about better ways to say yes. It is time to stop talking about what we cannot do and start talking about what we can do for these people. I commend this motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Xenophon’s) be agreed to.