unlawful

Australia resource industries seek ban of market boycotts (update 1)

3 May 2014:

Ben & Jerry's referred to consumer watchdog over save-the-reef campaign; theguardian.com, Friday 2 May 2014 06.58 BST; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/02/ben-jerrys-referred-to-consumer-watchdog-over-save-the-reef-campaign; Ice-cream company’s ‘mistruths could cost jobs’, says Queensland LNP senator elect who has written to the ACCC; "Queensland LNP senator elect Matthew Canavan said he wrote to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on Tuesday to consider the company’s conduct... “Australia has strict laws to protect consumers against misleading and deceptive behaviour,” he said. “These mistruths could cost jobs and development in regional Queensland. It’s irresponsible behaviour from a company that should know better.”.. The Queensland premier Campbell Newman also said on Thursday: “The World Wildlife Fund can make such false assertions, so be it. But a company is bound by consumer law and can’t make false and misleading statements and they are making false and misleading statements when it comes to this.”...


3 April 2014

Australian government may ban environmental boycotts; Guardian Australia: Parliamentary secretary says there is 'an appetite' for removing environmental groups' exemption from secondary boycotts ban; Thursday 3 April 2014; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/coalition-review-of-consumer-laws-may-ban-environmental-boycotts: "Coalition MPs and industry groups are using a review of competition laws to push for a ban on campaigns against companies on the grounds that they are selling products that damage the environment, for example by using old-growth timber or overfished seafood....  Groups including the Australian Forest Products Association and parts of the seafood industry are also preparing submissions to the review arguing that environmental campaigns against companies selling products made from native timbers or “unsustainable” fishing amount to a “secondary boycott” and should be unlawful....  But the new state Liberal government intends to undo the forest “peace deal”, expand sawlog production and stop environmental campaigns through tough new state laws aimed at protesters. It is also lobbying the federal government for a change to competition laws to stop market-based campaigns.... Colbeck said he would be suggesting a further change to competition law to increase the power of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to police general claims made by environmental groups about particular types of products “to ensure that they are truthful”.... “They can say what they like, they can campaign about what they like, they can have a point of view, but they should not be able to run a specific business-focused or market-focused campaign, and they should not be able to say things that are not true,” he said.... Groups like GetUp! and Markets for Change are currently exempt from section 45D of the Consumer and Competition Act which prohibits actions that stop a third person buying goods from another....

Tasmanian forests set for logging as Liberals push ahead with repeal; State government unveils plan to tear up historic deal between industry and greens protecting 400,000 hectares of forest; Australian Associated Press; theguardian.com, Tuesday 8 April 2014; http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/08/tasmanian-forests-logging-liberals-repeal

Khor Reports comment: Interesting to see a possible push back from Australia industry, state and federal government over market boycott campaigns by domestic NGOs. In contrast, palm oil has been facing significant market campaigns, but at a transnational level. Actions have been taken by palm oil producers in the French trade tribunal, for instance, but negative market actions continued and the number of products affected continued to rise. Also interesting that this is the second time in as many months that we read of a competition act possibly used in relation to the sustainability issue.