There are a number of issues that arise under the umbrella of Senator Xenophon's disclosure this week of alleged rape within the Catholic Church.

First: The allegations were of a rape. That is a crime. The organisation within which this alleged crime was committed should have/must report it immediately to the police - its a crime and not a discretionary or disciplinary issue for the Church to manage.

How would it be if any organisation within which a crime was committeed had as much time as it liked to manage the individuals, evidence, context and witnesses before it reported the matter to the police? It would quite legitimately be totally unacceptable. Yet the Catholic Church, which is theoretically meant to hold the moral high-ground, has not been moral or ethical by refusing to report the mattter to the police immediately the allegation came to their attention. There was NOTHING for them to do BUT report the matter to the police and allow the authorities to do what they needed to do.

In fact, one may even go so far as to accuse the Church of aiding and abbetting an alleged crime.

Secondly: The time taken by the Church to "investigate" the matter could reasonably be interpreted as a cover up as there was nothing for them to investigate. It is even conceivable that the Church may have been found to have allegedly covered up, abetted or facilitated the alleged accused from ever having to front the law. This, in any other circumstance, would be interpreted as a criminal act in itself.

Therefore, the Church was entirely incorrect to delay, for even a day, any such alleged criminal activity. The Church has lost any moral high-ground it might have had claim to by virtue of its demonstrable inaction.

In their defense, the Church argues that there are complex and sensitive issues to consider. Sorry - that's irrelevant. There are no complex or sensitive situations that absolve alleged criminals from facing the legal process. If complexities and sensitivities do exist, as they do, then the police and judiciary are quite capable of managing them. It is not the place of the Church to decide what is complex, sensitive and therefore beyond their obligation to report to the police. How much crime would be covered up if we all had that privelege?

That brings us to the actions of the Senator. Generally speaking, the actions of the Senator in this case are unusual but not without precendent. I suspect that the Senator acted because of the clear breach of duty of the Church and the appearance of obfuscation and delay by them. He probably figured that the law and the authorities can't do their job if the powerful owner of the context in which the incident allegedly occurred appears to be preventing access or due process.

By making the statement under Parliamentary Privelege the Senator was able to surface a clear breach of process without the defamatory threats that would certainly be applied if the matter was surfaced outside the Parliament.

I conclude that the Senator's action, in this circumstance is both reasonable and appropriate. He has used his judgement wisely to bring to the authority's attention something allegedly criminal that strong forces were trying to keep hidden.

In that action alone, the Senator has done more good for the average citizen than much that has been undertaken in Parliament over the last couple of years.