The battle for citizens to retain the right to 'protest in order to protect' continues in Abbott's Australia

Industries and individual businesses with a history of severe environment degradation or pollution have never liked this the fact that COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 45DD exists:

Situations in which boycotts permitted……..

Dominant purpose of conduct relates to environmental protection or consumer protection

             (3)  A person does not contravene, and is not involved in a contravention of, subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) by engaging in conduct if:

                     (a)  the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to environmental protection or consumer protection; and

                     (b)  engaging in the conduct is not industrial action.

Note 1:       If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is a body corporate:

(a)    it is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption; and

(b)    each of its members is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Note 2:       If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is not a body corporate:

(a)    it is not a "person" and is therefore not subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) (consequently, this exemption does not cover the organisation as such); but

(b)    each of its members is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Apparently enough submissions were received on the subject of secondary boycotts that the Harper Competition Policy Review September 2014 Draft Report included this recommendation and comment:

 

Draft Recommendation 32 — Secondary boycotts proceedings

Jurisdiction in respect of the prohibitions in sections 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45E and 45EA should be extended to the state and territory Supreme Courts.

A number of submissions raised the issue of the environmental and consumer exception to the secondary boycott prohibition. Consumer and environmental organisations argued for retention (or expansion) of the exception, while industry groups and others argued for its removal.

During consultations undertaken by the Panel, it appeared that the primary concern expressed by industry representatives is that environmental groups may damage a supplier in a market through a public campaign targeting the supplier that may be based on false or misleading information.

A question might arise whether a public campaign undertaken by an environmental or consumer  organisation against a trading business, advocating that customers ought not purchase products from the business, should be subject to the laws prohibiting false, misleading and deceptive conduct.

Presently, those laws only apply insofar as a person is engaged in trade or commerce.

However, expanding the laws concerning false, misleading or deceptive conduct to organisations  involved in public advocacy campaigns directed at trading businesses raises complex issues.

Many public advocacy campaigns directed at trading businesses concern health issues (e.g. tobacco, alcohol  and fast food) or social issues (e.g. gambling).

Consideration of the expansion of those laws in that context is beyond the Terms of Reference of the Review.

On the other hand, where an environmental or consumer group takes action that directly impedes the lawful commercial activity of others (as distinct from merely exercising free speech), a question arises whether that activity should be encompassed by the secondary boycott prohibition.

The Panel invites further comment on this issue.

However, the draft report recommendation possibly opens the door for extending consumer and environmental protection permitted boycott provisions to all states and territories if a matter concerning this issue reaches their Supreme Courts, because two (45D & 45DA) of the five prohibition sections mentioned are in effect subject to the aforementioned 45DD consumer protection and environmental protection exemptions.

The Harper Review’s final report is due before the end of March 2015.

Concerned citizens need to watch the Abbott Government response to that final report because many of its ideology warriors are not above muttering underneath their breath about ‘green terrorists’.