He continued: "Do you think it is reasonable that in those circumstances the organisation should be held to account in the context of the public benefit test?"
Faced with this pointed question, Brian Lucas blunted it by changing the reference of the question from one about an organisation to a question about an individual. He said: "If we have got the leader of an organisation behaving badly, criminally, that leader ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
Senator Xenophon persisted: "That is not quite what I asked though."
Advertisement
Brian Lucas then used the tactic of high moral ground to continue to avoid the point of the original general question that organisations could be accountable for failure to act about child abuse. He said:
"I know, but that is the answer I am giving because that in fact is what needs to happen. The organisation itself need not necessarily have its charitable status put at risk because it has, at that particular time, a bad leader. If that bad leader, who has done whatever wicked thing is alleged the leader has done, needs to be replaced and needs to be prosecuted, that in itself ought not necessarily affect the charitable status of the organisation he has ineptly led."
(Note that Lucas conceded a bishop could be "bad" and his cover-up of abuse could be characterised as "wicked" and could be "prosecuted.")
Senator Xenophon continued to persist. He raised a hypothetical instance where it has been established there was a cover-up of abuse, the organisation had been warned that it must change its ways and report abuse but "the systems do not change for reporting and ensuring those responsible are brought to account, what would you then say in those circumstances that the public benefit of that organisation is compromised if they do not change their ways?"
Faced with this sharpened pointed question, Brian Lucas stuck his tactic of answering a general question with a specific response. He said: "the difficulty in answering your question is knowing who they 'they' are who have not changed their ways."
Senator Xenophon countered: "the 'they' would be those responsible at a senior level where the protocols and the processes of an organisation do not change to ensure that there is mandatory reporting, for instance, and that people are brought to account to the authorities. If a blind eye continues to be turned, would that compromise the whole issue of public benefit?"
Advertisement
Faced with the fact that he could no longer avoid Senator Xenophon's general question, Brian Lucas then came forth with a rhetorical flourish that would have done De Valera proud:
"Not necessarily, because you have to then draw the connection between the organisation itself, how big it is, who the other parties to the organisation are and what other people within the organisation can do to remedy the ineptitude of a particular group who have acted illegally. The connection between the inept, illegal, criminal, wicked activity of a leader, if such is the case, and the consequences for the organisation that they have ineptly led needs to be drawn more precisely, with respect."
At that point, Senator Xenophon gave up. He had done his best to get a straight answer, but it seems he recognised he was never going to get it.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
26 posts so far.