Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by coalition senators today. Firstly, I want to comment again—as I have already done on a number of occasions—on the protest action that this motion refers to, which took place in Perth last week. As I said in answers to questions from Senator Henderson in question time yesterday and as I said in a media appearance on Sunday morning, this protest, in my opinion and that of every member of the government, completely crossed the line of what is appropriate, and it should be rightly condemned. As Minister Rowland, Minister and Madeline King, other representatives of the government and I have said, everyone has a right to feel safe in their own home. It doesn't matter whether they're the CEO of the major listed company, it doesn't matter whether they're a member of parliament, it doesn't matter whether they're any member of the Australian public: people have a right to feel safe in their own homes. Australians should feel free to express their views, and protesting and rallies are an important part of our democracy. But it is not acceptable for these protests to be conducted at the door of someone's private home.

When you take on jobs that are in the public eye, there is an understanding that sometimes you will face protests and public opposition. It's something that happens to all of us every day of the week. But what you do not expect is for these extreme acts to come to your front door, where you and your family have every right to feel safe. Crossing that line from peacefully protesting to trespassing on people's property and intimidating them makes them feel frightened to live at home. I don't think that anyone believes that is an acceptable way to voice what you think about a certain matter, nor does it do your cause any good.

Let's also be clear about what these protesters want. These people want to end fossil fuels today, without any contemplation of the consequences for Australians and for our regional neighbours. The truth is that this kind of unthoughtful approach would only result in economic harm for Australians, and it would deprive our friends and allies in the region of the energy supplies they need. As is well understood, the Albanese government is committed to reaching net zero. We've set ambitious targets to improve our emissions reduction by 2030, and we're transitioning to renewable energy. But protests such as these do not help that cause. They only serve to undermine it.

I understand the perpetrators in question have been charged, and I acknowledge the efforts of WA police. We should let that police investigation and those charges run their course. I also understand that the Minister for Resources, Madeline King, has made contact with the CEO of Woodside, Meg O'Neill, to check in on her welfare. That kind of event is frightening and would shake anyone. Clearly, given that the police are involved, their actions will be subject to investigation and legal proceedings. As I've said, everyone in Australia and across the world has the right to protest, but they do not have a right to trespass on people's land and their homes and make them scared to be in their own homes. That is not legitimate protest activity.

In terms of the ABC, I understand that the Woodside chairman wrote to Minister Rowland last week to outline the company's concerns and the steps that they were taking to formally raise these concerns with the ABC. I also understand that in doing so the chairman also thanked Minister Rowland for her public commentary and handling of the issue. The ABC have since confirmed that they have received that official complaint and they are conducting a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding this matter. It is the right thing for the ABC to examine this matter, and the government will not be supporting this motion today, because we believe it is appropriate to let that investigation run its course. That is the process the Woodside chairman has himself chosen to pursue. The company of the CEO who was involved in this incident has elected to seek an investigation by the ABC, and that wish should be respected and that process should be respected.

The opposition is also aware that it has options such as examining these issues in Senate estimates, and, of course, if they are dissatisfied with the ABC's investigation, of making a complaint to the ABC Ombudsman—a position that was established by the former coalition government. So there are options here to pursue this matter legitimately. As I said, the Woodside chair has referred this matter to the ABC for investigation. In that context, the government does not believe it would be constructive to commence a Senate inquiry while this investigation is underway—an investigation, as I said, that has been requested by the Woodside chairman.

Australians, understandably, have high standards for the public broadcaster. Under its charter, the ABC is required to provide high-quality, innovative and comprehensive services to inform, entertain, educate and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. While The ABC is independent of government in its operational and editorial matters, that does not mean that it is above scrutiny. There are robust complaints handling processes in place to deal with issue that are raised with the ABC, and they need to be used to thoroughly investigate this incident. That is what is now occurring, at the request of the Woodside chairman. The government will await the processes that are underway at the ABC. I suggest that the coalition should consider utilising other avenues to raise questions about this matter, such as through Senate estimates or waiting for the investigation by the ABC to be completed. As I said, if the opposition remains dissatisfied with the process there is the option of referring the complaint to the ABC Ombudsman as well. That is the appropriate way of handling this matter, that is the way the Woodside chairman has requested this matter be dealt with, and we think that that is the appropriate way for it to be dealt with, with rather than setting up a Senate inquiry in the middle of that investigation.