Senate debates

Tuesday, 8 August 2023

Committees

Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference

6:21 pm

Photo of Michaelia CashMichaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

As Senator McGrath says—and I will take that interjection—not the ABC! Clearly, that is what has occurred here. Only the ABC would be travelling through the suburbs at 6.30 in the morning and not think that perhaps something was up, that perhaps they themselves had a duty to inform the police of what was about to occur. Quite frankly, alarm bells should have been ringing that environmental activists were turning up at a residential property in Perth at 6.30 in the morning. I would have thought it might have been at this point in time that the crew could have thought of alerting the authorities. That would have been the sensible course of action, but, of course, again, we are talking about the ABC.

The ABC claimed that the team remained on public land. This is what they've actually said. This is their explanation. The publicly funded, taxpayer funded, ABC claimed that the team remained on public land and at no time went on to private property or had any involvement in what was happening. That's their explanation. The problem with the explanation is this: like so many buildings now, the houses have CCTV. What then happened is Sky News Australia—I believe it was Andrew Clennell—revealed a picture of CCTV taken from the scene. Oh no! We have an explanation from the ABC, but now we actually have Sky News Australia with an actual picture, CCTV taken from the scene. What does the picture from the CCTV of the scene show? It clearly shows at least two of the four ABC Four Corners team—and this is where their explanation, unfortunately, starts to fall apart—standing in the driveway of this private residence.

What that does—and it should say to all Australians—is bring into doubt the ABC explanation of last week. Of course, it's the ABC, so they're probably going to come up with some technical arguments about where somebody's property begins and ends. I don't know about you, but the last time I stood in my driveway—I would say that most reasonable Australians, when they're standing in their driveway, would consider the activities in the driveway as depicted in the photo to be overstepping the mark.

We all work in politics, and we know that there are certain lines in politics you don't cross. You don't bring peoples' families into an argument. It's an unwritten rule, but it is one that I would hope that we all adhere to. Well, I would have thought that the publicly funded broadcaster would also know that there are some lines you don't cross, but, again, it is the ABC, and they clearly weren't thinking about lines that could or could not be crossed.

This is where it gets interesting. After the picture became public, we were told that the ABC is now conducting a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding this matter. I would as well! Because the picture that was made public doesn't quite accord with the explanation that has been given by the ABC. But what we on this side of the chamber, the coalition led by Peter Dutton, are saying is that, quite frankly, that is not good enough; the ABC investigating itself, quite frankly, is not good enough. It is funded by the Australian taxpayer; it is taxpayers' money, and the taxpayer has a right to know what went on. That is why we have moved this motion. We want to see this matter referred to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee for an inquiry and report by 12 October 2023.

What we'd like the inquiry to look at is this: the ABC's actions in attending the protest; engagement between the ABC and protesters prior to the incident; any collusion between the ABC and the protesters; the explanations provided by the ABC for its attendance at the incident and the extent to which those explanations are accurate—this one is very important, given what the CCTV footage shows; and any other related matters. What will the ABC say? They'll say this is an attack on media freedom. Guess what? No, it is not. We on this side of the chamber strongly believe in freedom of speech and a free media. But—and this is what sometimes the ABC need to understand—it comes with a responsibility on the media's part to conduct themselves in a way that is acceptable to the majority of Australians. And that responsibility is particularly important when the media organisation in question is funded by the Australian taxpayer.

This is also not an attempt to cow the ABC or shut down legitimate reporting on any matters. It is simply a question about conduct on that day. As I have said, the taxpayers who fund the ABC deserve—in fact, they don't just deserve, they should be demanding from the ABC and, indeed, from this Senate—answers to those questions. We should have confidence that our money is being used well and that certain standards are being adhered to by those receiving taxpayer funding.

We've heard from the government that they've asked for more information about this matter, but I say to the government: 'Well, quite frankly, that is not good enough.' It is time for Minister Rowland to publicly release all information that her office holds on the conduct of the ABC at the protest. This includes all communications on the matter between the minister and the ABC. The minister should also explain whether or not she, the Prime Minister and the Albanese government support the ABC's conduct. We also call on the minister to say whether any ABC employee will face any consequences as a result of their conduct. It's also time the minister revealed any further action that she is going to take on this matter. Australians have a right to know what the minister responsible for the ABC is doing. But, not only that, they also have a right to know what she thinks should be done.

Those opposite may also be interested in what the Labor Premier of Western Australia had to say about this matter. It's not often I'm going to agree with Premier Cook, but in this instance at least he had something to say. He penned a widely reported letter to ABC chair Ita Buttrose. In part, this is what Premier Cook's letter said:

I have been in public life long enough to understand the vital role the news media plays in a healthy democracy and the right of journalists to report the news without fear or favour. However, the fact that an ABC TV crew attended the private home of a WA citizen to document the committing of alleged criminal acts is cause for great concern and morally wrong.

Your Managing Director has sought to reassure me about the prior knowledge of the ABC crew—

Now, listen to this. This is the WA Premier:

but it is difficult to comprehend how a TV crew could not understand how their presence at a private residence only encouraged these activists. It is doubtful 'Disrupt Burrup Hub' would have targeted a private residence if your TV crew was not present to publicise such appalling actions. Wittingly or unwittingly, the ABC was complicit.

And what have we heard, colleagues, from Prime Minister Albanese to date?

Comments

No comments