11/11/2019

Loud Environmental Protests Are A Great Australian Tradition

Sydney Morning Herald - Editorial

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s threat to outlaw certain forms of protest by environmentalists against coal and gas mining companies might be good short-term politics but it would be a dangerous move for Australian democracy.
Mr Morrison announced last week in Queensland that he planned to crack down on what he described as a new “absolutist” and “anarchist” trend where environmentalists impose “secondary boycotts”.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he is working on legal measures to outlaw the "indulgent and selfish practices" of protest groups that try to stop major resources projects. Credit: AAP
In these actions, climate change protesters do not target the mining companies directly but instead they target businesses and firms who provide goods or services to them.
They organise picket lines, social media campaigns, consumer boycotts and the like to pressure banks and insurance companies to stop providing finance to the miners and they try to scare away the contractors who build the mines.
Clearly the environmentalists’ tactics annoy mining companies and perhaps also Mr Morrison’s “quiet Australian” voters in regional areas but there is something bigger at stake here for all Australians.
The right to protest and, yes, protest loudly is what separates Australia from countries like China. It must be protected.
Mr Morrison is wrong if he thinks that secondary boycotts are a new trend or that they are only used by environmentalists against mining. They have long been a widely used tool for many social protest movements.
For instance, anti-slavery group Walk Free, founded by miner Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, organises protests against fashion houses such as Zara and Gucci, to force them to stop buying cotton from farmers who exploit their workers.
In fact, Australian competition law already bans secondary boycotts and is widely used in industrial disputes against unions.
But the law rightly includes a specific exemption for campaigns where the dominant purpose of the secondary boycott is environmental or consumer protection.
The oil and gas and forest industries among others complained about the exemption at a review into the law in 2015.
But the panel, led by Reserve Bank of Australia board member Ian Harper, found the exemption for environmental and consumer action was justified because it was up to businesses and consumers to make up their own minds about how to respond to the protests.
Protests only succeed if they win the support of consumers and shareholders. It is called the free market.
There must be some limits on protests, for instances where they disrupt traffic or commit vandalism. But public advocacy should not be a crime.
Even if the government scrapped the exemption for advocacy in the competition act, that would not be the end of the story. Any new law would be open to challenge as an infringement of the qualified right to freedom of political expression which the High Court has repeatedly found in the constitution.
Given all the practical difficulties of drafting the law, Mr Morrison may not actually want it to pass. He may just see it as a useful wedge issue in areas affected by drought and dependent on mining jobs.
But it will be increasingly clear that the real threat to the coal and gas industries is not urban elites or environmental protesters but climate change.
Banks and finance companies are being told by their shareholders and customers that they must do something. Regulators like the Reserve Bank of Australia are warning them.
Banks are doing the numbers and realising that the mounting global pressure to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will inevitably cut demand for fossil fuels and undermine the business case for new mines. That is the problem that Mr Morrison should face.

Links
at

No comments:

Post a Comment