|
senate vote 2023-09-04#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-01-12 09:26:09
|
Title
Committees — Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference- Committees - Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <i>Four Corners</i> 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 <i>Four </i><i>Corners</i> 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.</p><p>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 <i>Four Corners</i> crew as the hardest-hitting, most informative, cutting-edge news team in the country. I have to say that <i>Four Corners</i> does have a very strong reputation, which has been built up over many years, but this action diminishes that.</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p><p>and, Senator Pratt, I would protect yours—and yours too, Senator McKim.</p><p>I don't care which media outlet it is. They shouldn't be turning up to cover a home invasion.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>Order! Interjections are disorderly.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>On what basis are we doing that? Where is the line?</p><p>Senator Pratt, you've had three weeks. We listened to you, last time round. You've had three weeks for the ABC to run its investigation. I reckon that's pretty fair. We have since learnt that we were lied to by the ABC in their initial statement. They didn't tell us the whole truth. So it's about time the Senate got to ask its questions, not the questions that the ABC decides it wants to ask for itself.</p><p>You went to somebody's home. It's a home invasion. It's not just an industrial protest. We all get that. Senators on this side of protect and believe in the right to protest, but you went to somebody's home, Senator McKim. Just because it's somebody who works in the mining industry, the Greens think that this is justified. That is an absolute disgrace. What about the kids who were in the household?</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>Order! Senator Hanson-Young?</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>A point of order: misleading this chamber. Senator Colbeck, you may not have been in here when this debate first started, but I clearly put on the record that the Greens do not support protest in people's homes, and I would like you to reflect upon that.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>That was a debating point, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Pratt, are you on the same point?</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>A different point of order: Senator Colbeck said, 'You invaded people's homes,' which is just obviously not true.</p> <p class="speaker">Hollie Hughes</p><p>Check the <i>Hansard</i>.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>No, I did check—if you had listened. I ask that he desist, because that is clearly out of order and unparliamentary.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>Thank you, Senator Pratt. Senator Colbeck, you have the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I withdraw any imputation about colleagues in this chamber with respect to the home invasion. I acknowledge Senator Hanson-Young did mention it, and I sat through the entire debate in the last time around and listened to all the lame excuses from the other side as to why this couldn't occur. I accept that Senator Hanson-Young did acknowledge that people's houses should be out of bounds, but that's why I'm so bloody cheesed off about this. They went to somebody's home. I'd be equally cheesed off if it was your home, Senator Hanson Young. None of us—nobody in public life, nobody in commercial life—deserves this. Nobody deserves this.</p><p>The ABC's had three weeks. The ABC has had three weeks to complete this investigation. They've admitted they didn't give us the full story at the outset. They've admitted that, and I acknowledge Mr Anderson for doing so, but time's up. The Senate should be given the opportunity to ask its questions, not the ones that the internal ABC investigators want to ask themselves. Imagine, if this was a mining company investigating itself, what we would be hearing from across the chamber. What would we be hearing?</p><p>Some consistency of argument would be the thing that I'm talking about: consistency of argument, consistency of process. The ABC's had three weeks. The government and the Greens should reconsider their position. We all agree—Senator Watt, Senator Payman, Senator Hanson-Young and, I'm assuming, Senator McKim—that people's homes are out of bounds. We all think that. We all agree with that. So let this chamber ask its questions. That's what this motion seeks to do. Let's stand up for the things that we actually believe in: protecting people's homes and their families from these activities, which are starting to get out of hand and become home invasions. I genuinely and sincerely think the government and the Greens should reconsider their position on this. I genuinely believe that.</p><p>These people went to somebody's home. They had been casing the place out for two nights. They were emboldened by the fact that they knew they would get an ABC <i>Four Corners</i> news crew there. We need to play our part in making sure that this sort of activity doesn't re-occur. I genuinely don't understand how in good conscience this chamber can say no to asking these questions. I genuinely don't understand it, because it's absolutely outrageous that the ABC through this process was effectively party to home invasion. It shouldn't happen. Get news, get protests, get all of that, but we need to be able to ask the questions that we want to ask and we should be doing everything that we possibly can, as we have agreed across the chamber. This protection of our private homes should apply in that context everywhere.</p><p>It's not about the Coalition. It's not about the Greens. It's not about crossbench. It's not about Labor in government. This is about protecting people's homes from action that should not occur and ensuring that important government institutions which are trusted by Australians to report are not drawn into that process and don't incite that process. So the government and the Greens should genuinely reconsider their vote on this. It would it would be an absolute indictment on them both if they didn't.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question now be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>The question is that the question now be put.</p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-09-04.200.1):
- > *That the question now be put.*
- This means that debate will now end and, instead, the vote on [the matter](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-09-04.199.1) will be taken straight away.
-
-
|