By Peter Milne
The chief executive of Australia’s largest gas company has obtained violence restraining orders against members of a climate action group who protested outside her home.
A Woodside spokeswoman said interim VROs had been made against the four people charged over a recent incident at Meg O’Neill’s Perth home.
19-year old Lane Rose (right) was arrested outside Meg O’Neill’s house on August 1.Credit: Composite image - Ben Searcy and Peter Milne
“These orders were sought to protect Ms O’Neill’s family’s safety,” she said.
It is understood that one order is yet to be served, so is not yet in effect.
Four campaigners from the Disrupt Burrup Hub group were arrested on August 1 after a morning protest outside O’Neill’s house in City Beach, a suburb of Perth.
They were later charged with conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, and released on bail on conditions that included they do not approach O’Neill, her home or the Woodside building.
One of the protesters, university student Matilda Lane-Rose, held a press conference outside WA’s state parliament two days after she was arrested, where she defended her action outside O’Neill’s home as peaceful and slammed Woodside’s gas projects as a disaster for the climate and indigenous heritage.
“In terms of her feeling threatened, I’d just like it to be known that there were over a dozen counter-terrorist police officers camped both inside and outside her property overnight,” she said.
“So I think that she was very, very protected on Tuesday, and there was no threat whatsoever posed by me, a 19-year-old carrying a bike lock.”
The orders, which were sought by O'Neill, include a condition that the campaigners may not “make any reference to person protected by any electronic means.”
The protesters’ lawyer Zarah Burgess said in a statement this clause precluded her clients from having non-offensive, critical discourse around the role of the Woodside chief executive.
She claimed the order would interfere with media coverage of Woodside’s Burrup Hub and the Disrupt Burrup Hub campaign, “including with the ABC’s coverage as Matilda is central to a Four Corners program currently in production.”
This was denied by a Woodside spokesperson, who said the orders would not prevent the protesters discussing the company or its operations in the media.
The ABC, which had a camera crew at O’Neill’s house to film the protest, declined to comment.
The broadcaster was criticised for its attendance but declared the program on anti-protest laws would continue to be developed.
O’Neill has obtained violence restraining orders on four Disrupt Burrup Hub campaigners that must be served by the police to become effective.
Human Rights Law Centre legal director Alice Drury said the orders sent the message that people who spoke out against fossil fuel companies could expect to be intimidated and silenced through court proceedings.
Options for orders
A VRO is not the only type of restraining order available in WA.
Misconduct restraining orders are normally used for non-violent, but still unhelpful, problematic behaviour while VROs are obtained for anything more serious, according to lawyers Simon Creek and Lisa Riley of HHG Legal Group.
A crucial difference is that a court can grant a VRO after only hearing from the aggrieved party but both parties must be heard before an MRO is granted.
“Being served with an interim VRO, usually an order you didn’t even know had been applied for, ‘locks you down’ until the court makes further orders, usually at a trial,” they said.
The campaigners are now restrained until they have the opportunity to state their case in court, and the first available hearing is understood to be some weeks away.
Similarly, if O’Neill had sought an MRO instead of a VRO, she would have had to wait for a hearing.
The HHG lawyers said the use of VROs in the business sector was rare in Australia, but more common in the US.
They said the clauses restricting what the climate campaigners can do are a standard feature of VROs in WA and are important in family and criminal law cases where social media is often used to intimidate and harass people.
“If the idea is to give someone physical safety with the making of a VRO, it is equally important to provide mental and emotional safety in the same way,” they said.
While not commenting on O’Neill’s VROs, Creek and Riley said the practical effect of the standard clauses can be difficult to determine without significant legal work.
They would advise any client not to ignore the risk of breaching a VRO, as a successful conviction would result in a criminal record.
“Breaching a VRO is a much more serious matter than being restrained by one in the first place,” they said.
Speaking generally, Bill Browne, director of the Australia Institute’s democracy program, said restraining orders affecting free speech was evidence of Australia’s creeping restrictions on protest rights.
“Citizens concerned about climate action, animal rights and racial equality are being framed as dangerous criminals,” he said.
“Protests help hold the powerful to account – which is why those in power don’t like them.”
Browne said Australia lacked formal freedom of speech protections people in most other western democracies took for granted.
Our Breaking News Alert will notify you of significant breaking news when it happens. Get it here.