Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was very disappointing to get a letter today from the trade practices commissioner, Mr Sims, saying that he wanted to do a Pontius Pilate on a particular motion that the Senate had carried. In that letter the chairman said: 'We are not going to investigate this because it is unlikely to have had the effect of causing substantial loss or damage to the business of Max Brenner such as to constitute a contravention of section 45D of the act. Relevant here are the infrequent nature of the protests, their limited duration and the consequent difficulty in apportioning the revenue impact of this activity versus other factors.' He then goes on to allude to the Victoria Police as doing the job for us anyhow. I do not accept that.

I think Mr Sims is only a new boy in the role of trade practices commissioner. He should take more seriously a resolution of this Senate when it is backed by people representing 90 per cent of the population of Australia. Sure, the Greens do not support it. But the Liberals support it, the Nationals support it, Labor support it and the Independents support it. They all supported the motion that I moved on 18 August. Mr Sims simply says, 'It does not do the things that it should do.' Let me point out to Mr Sims that last week in Sydney there was another demonstration, another picket, another boycott and more intimidation of a Jewish confectionary shop. No-one in Australia wants to go down that path. We have been there before, as Senator Abetz said. It sends shivers down people's spines that we could even contemplate doing it. Yet the trade practices commission turns its back and will not investigate it.

I have maintained an interest in the ACCC and the Trade Practices Act. Since the prosecutions of unionists in the seventies for secondary boycotts, it has been clear that section 45D applies where there is a real chance or possibility that boycotting conduct will, if pursued, cause loss or damage that is more than trivial, minimal, insubstantial or novel. It concerns me very much that in its media release the ACCC exonerates the BDS campaign. With respect to secondary boycotts, the ACCC applies a much higher standard to those sometimes violent protests than the standard the courts have applied consistently to the AMIEU, the TWU, the CFMEU and even to the peaceful activities of milk vendors. I can remember a group of dairy farmers wanting to get together to negotiate on a price with the manufacturers, and they were barred. This was a group of innocent dairy farmers who just wanted to sit down and talk about prices. The ACCC came down on them like a tonne of bricks and said, 'Not on.' I had to seek an exemption. It is going back some time now, but that cost a fair bit of money. If the ACCC can do that to dairy farmers, surely it can get off its tail and try to do something that will stop these boycotts. This is completely unsatisfactory.

There should be no excuses for Mr Sims. He should use the same criteria as he does for secondary boycotts by unions and other businesses that seek to meet and have discussions—but apparently we have a separate set of standards. Mr Sims says: 'Don't worry about it. Victoria Police will do it.' Sure, Victoria Police might do it and they should do it and they have done it—and good luck to them. They have done it efficiently and effectively, but we expect that sort of reaction from the ACCC and we are not getting it, and we should get it. I say to Mr Sims: 'People in this parliament do not casually pass resolutions for you to ignore. When a resolution passes this parliament, it has the support of all senators other than the Greens. It represents about 90 per cent of the population, who want you, the ACCC, to take some action.'

I have moved another motion today. It will be the fourth that I have moved. Every time I have moved them, Senator Brown has said he does not support the BDS and will not support the BDS, as Senator Abetz said. We have tested him time and time again. This will probably be the fourth resolution. He sits over there, but there is no doubt in my mind who is running the Greens at the moment. It is Senator Lee Rhiannon. She has come in here and changed the Greens from a benign sort of environmental party to a hard Left Socialist Alliance party, and that is what people have got to understand. You are voting for someone that is supporting a boycott on Jewish businesses. So when you vote for the Greens, you are not voting for a benign green party; you are voting for a party with racist views. They say: 'We are going to boycott. We are going to picket. We are going to intimidate anyone who wants to shop at these Jewish businesses.' That should make people who think they are doing the right thing by voting green think twice when they vote for a green environmental party. The Greens do not want to do the right thing. The Greens want to intimidate Jewish businesses. This is 1939 revisited. This is how it starts—