admin /30 August, 2007
16 August 2007
Australia’s competition and consumer watchdog will be able to launch court actions for damages on the behalf of small businesses against trade unions and community groups that engage in boycotts, under legislation introduced in Parliament.
Last night Treasurer Peter Costello said the Government had introduced legislation to strengthen the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act, giving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission unprecedented powers to stop boycott action by unions and other organisations, including community groups. It has been introduced jointly with Small Business minister Fran Bailey.
The legislation, if passed, would allow the ACCC to take court action and seek compensation for losses incurred by third parties affected by such boycotts, such as a potential customer or supplier.
Mr Costello said that the changes were designed to help small businesses that lacked the power and resources to take action.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has previously indicated he would oppose the changes, saying they stifle free speech and stop community groups from mounting boycotts in support of noble causes such as the environment and human rights.
As with previous measures by the federal government, a harsh new law has been introduced to deal with a single issue, this time against PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and its protests against the sheep industry its practice of mulesing – the removal of strips of wool-bearing wrinkle skin from around the tail of a sheep on farms where risk of flystrike is considered high.
It should be said that flystrike – or essentially a sheep being being eaten alive by maggots is a far worse fate for sheep than mulesing, and there is research being carried out to find alternatives.
PETA, while well-meaning, aren’t the most moderate group around, but this new law suggests that the federal government aren’t so moderate either.
The problem is that the bill creates real potential for scope creep, and in this case creates the potential to limit the ability of people to protest on ethical grounds on behalf of those who are the most voiceless amongst us – animals.