Senate debates
Monday, 4 September 2023
Committees
Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference
5:19 pm
Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
I'd like to make a contribution on this motion to refer a matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee, particularly given the passing of three weeks since we started the debate on this. I seriously urge both the opposition and those on the crossbench to reconsider their stated position in relation to this motion. I appreciate the contribution of Minister Watt and Senator Payman in relation to the concerns that they both expressed in relation to what is effectively a home invasion. I agree with everything they said right up to the point where they said they wouldn't support the motion.
This is a really important matter. Those of us who read the initial statement from the ABC could see through the wording in that statement when it said that they had no knowledge of what action was going to occur there. They went on to say that they had attended the protest action to gather material for a potential report later this year. Clearly that Four Corners crew had some knowledge of the type of activity that was going to occur. I'm not sure when they were called out what they expected to find in a residential area of Perth other than a residence. It's wonderful that there just happened to be an ABC Four Corners crew available at 6.30 in the morning to attend a location. They just happened to be in town; they just happened to be there.
Unfortunately, what we've subsequently learnt through a statement by Managing Director David Anderson is that when the initial ABC statement in relation to the Woodside protest action was released they didn't tell us the truth. The subsequent statement admits that. The ABC promotes to us the Four Corners crew as the hardest-hitting, most informative, cutting-edge news team in the country. I have to say that Four Corners does have a very strong reputation, which has been built up over many years, but this action diminishes that.
Since we started debating this reference three weeks have passed. Quite frankly, I reckon the ABC has had three weeks to get its act in order to conduct its inquiries, and now it's the turn of the Senate. I'm not sure what the government thinks or the crossbench think, but I know my colleagues on this side want to ask questions of the ABC that we want answered. We're not interested in the questions that the ABC wants to ask itself in its own inquiry. We think that this is a matter of such importance that this chamber should have the opportunity to conduct an inquiry. The ABC have had three weeks. They've had long enough. I urge the government, the Greens and the rest of the crossbench to reconsider their stated position because, quite frankly, for the ABC time is up. You've had three weeks. You've admitted through the managing director that you didn't tell us the truth in your first statement—and I commend the managing director for doing that. You didn't tell us the whole story. You've admitted that you knew what was likely to be going on. And you've admitted that you're building a story on protest action.
What concerns me is the other sorts of crazy protest that will be incited by the process that's now understood by the protest movement, that the ABC will turn up to these sorts of protests. And we should stop calling them protests. This was a home invasion. You went to somebody's home. You went to somebody's private residence. It ceased to be a matter of protest immediately it became a home invasion. The ABC and the government and the crossbench are now protecting home invaders. That's what's happening here. On what basis should the government be protecting home invaders?
The ABC were participants in this process. They knew the type of action that was going to happen. They just happened to have a film crew available at 6.30 in the morning? I mean, seriously; of course this was coordinated. Anybody who can read a media statement could read it in the initial media statement from the ABC. It was not as they claimed it was when they made their initial statement. It wasn't, and that has since been admitted by the ABC managing director, David Anderson. I give credit to him for at least making the admission, but you've had three weeks to investigate this now. The government and the Greens can't run a protection racket for home invaders, and that's what they're doing.
You went to somebody's home. I would say this if it was Sarah Hanson-Young's place. I would want to protect her home as much as they would anybody else's. I would even protect Senator Watt's place—
and, Senator Pratt, I would protect yours—and yours too, Senator McKim.
I don't care which media outlet it is. They shouldn't be turning up to cover a home invasion.
Honourable senators interjecting—
No comments