Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response from the ACCC.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The response of the chairman of the ACCC to the Senate motion concerning the anti-Israel BDS campaign against Max Brenner chocolate cafes is, to say the least, disappointing. I also note that this motion was opposed by Greens senators. Since Greens leader Senator Bob Brown took his alleged robust line against Senator Rhiannon's support for the boycott divestment and sanctions campaign, BDS, in the March New South Wales election, Senator Rhiannon has repeatedly needled him on this issue.

After the backlash against the Greens at the March New South Wales election, particularly in the seat of Marrickville, Senator Bob Brown lambasted Senator-elect Rhiannon. Senator-elect Rhiannon's first reaction had been to suggest that the Greens should have done more to explain this issue. She said:

Collectively, we didn't do enough to amplify support for BDS and show that this is part of an international movement.

Senator Bob Brown publicly accused the New South Wales Greens of having mistakenly taken to:

... having their own shade of foreign policy. I've had a good robust discussion with Lee. She and I, not for the first time, have engaged in a very frank discussion about the way the New South Wales election went.

Days later, Senator Bob Brown said:

It's the federal party that makes foreign policy—simple as that.

The New South Wales position was rejected at the National Council of Australian Greens. It was brought forward by New South Wales but rejected last year. On Lateline, Ali Moore asked Senator Brown:

Do you support the policy that New South Wales Greens have for a boycott?

Senator Brown replied:

No I don't and I've said this before publicly, Ali, that it was rejected by the Australian Greens Council last year.

Not long after, Senator-elect Rhiannon staked out her ground:

We have that position in New South Wales and I support the New South Wales position—

she told Sky's The Nation program, adding that it was:

... not something we're taking to the federal parliament.

Then a month later in her blog she threw down the gauntlet, declaring that:

Despite the intimidation, misinformation and abuse in recent months directed towards the Greens NSW, my colleagues in Marrickville and myself, I will not step away from speaking out for Palestinian human rights.

In the context of my work as a federal Senator, this will be just one of many issues I will work on.

Intimidation? To whom she could she have been referring? She then took issue with Senator Brown's assertion about the Greens National Council rejecting BDS:

It is not accurate to say that the Greens National Council rejected a BDS proposal.

… … …

… there was no vote to reject it. A less stringent boycott was supported.

… … …

… The argument that the NSW position is a contravention of the national policy does not stand up.

When the Australian put to Senator Brown Senator-elect Rhiannon's declaration that there had been no national Greens vote against the BDS, he then changed his story. He said:

There has been no vote in favour of the BDS proposal.

That, of course, is in stark conflict with what he previously said, namely that it had been rejected. But Senator Rhiannon repeated her assertion at a Politics in the Pub event in Sydney in July:

One of the pieces of information was that the New South Wales Greens were going against the national policy so the boycott was not in contravention of our national policy. There is a diversity of opinion only about how we take forward the Greens's position.

That begs the question: misinformation from whom? To whom could Senator Rhiannon be referring? In a motion in the Senate after Senator Rhiannon's arrival, Senator Brown squibbed the opportunity to vote against the BDS. In fact, Senator Brown has voted against anti-BDS resolutions in the Senate on numerous occasions now, notwithstanding his declaration on Lateline that he did not support the BDS policy. After their public spat following the New South Wales election, Senator Brown seems to have been at pains to appease his new senator on BDS, but to no avail.

Meanwhile, Senator Rhiannon keeps pushing the boundaries on BDS. Last week while supporting the boycotting of Israeli businesses like Max Brenner's, which do not acknowledge the Palestinian cause, Senator Rhiannon placed a use-by date on her commitment not to push the BDS campaign in the Senate:

I am quite aware that Bob Brown has a different approach on this, that within the federal parliament there isn't the support for this issue at the present time, but in the wider community there is growing understanding about the need to take a stand for Palestinian human rights, so I am not taking this into the Senate at the present time.

We will see how long that lasts.

Finally, I should not fail to congratulate brother David Cragg from the Victorian Trades Hall for finally telling the truth to BDS proponents in the union movement regarding flaws in the logic and integrity of the BDS strategy and the totally repugnant history of boycotting Jewish businesses. I would simply urge the Greens, yet again, and anybody out there who has concerns about the Palestinian cause not to go down this ugly path of boycotting Jewish businesses. The world has been there before, and surely we do not want to go down that path ever again.

With all the background that I have just provided, one wonders why the ACCC has failed to take decisive action given that the activities are clearly designed to hurt those businesses. I understand that Senator Boswell will be expanding on that aspect. I thank the Senate.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that making comparisons with 1939 is unacceptable and I ask the member to withdraw.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell.

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

I am afraid I cannot withdraw, because it is exactly what happened in 1939—there were boycotts and there was intimidation and victimisation of Jewish businesses. I will not withdraw and I should not have to withdraw.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, I can understand the sensitivity of the Greens but the standing orders of the Senate were never designed to deny the historical fact, and the historical fact is as Senator Boswell has set out. There is no doubt that the anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany in 1939 started off with the boycott of Jewish businesses, and it went further and further until the holocaust. For a point of order to be raised suggesting that somehow that can be airbrushed is simply unacceptable. That is the established history. People accept that that is what occurred in 1939 and, unfortunately, those who support these—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, you are moving into argument. Senator Milne, on the point of order, as long as it is not a personal reflection on another senator it can continue into debate. If it moves into a personal reflection and the senator feels that way, we will take it further. Senator Boswell, with that understanding, you can continue.

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

Thank you. I can understand why Senator Milne feels so uncomfortable. I know this would embarrass her. I know the woman and she would never have any part of this. Nevertheless, the Greens voted for this motion. Senator Brown moved a motion the other day which stated:

That the Senate upholds the democratic principle that consumers should be free to buy or not buy goods based on personal ethics.

Then I moved an amendment which stated:

... that consumers should not be prevented from exercising that democratic principle to be free to buy or not to buy, by means of unlawful secondary boycott, intimidation or picket.

Senator Brown could not bring himself to vote for that amendment. He squibbed on it. He said he wanted the Greens motion noted against the amendment, and that has happened on three other occasions.

Who is running this place, Senator Brown? Who is running your party? On five or six occasions you have said, 'I will not take any notice of Lee Rhiannon.'

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, any statement should be made through the chair. You must refer to the senator as Senator Rhiannon.

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

Senator Brown has said on five or six occasions—and Senator Abetz listed them in chronological order—that they do not support a BDS; they do not support a Jewish boycott. But when push comes to shove, where is he? He has not got the guts to stand up and vote against Senator Lee Rhiannon. Tomorrow, Senator Brown, you have one more chance to redeem yourself, because a motion will be put up tomorrow congratulating one of your members—an MLC in New South Wales, I think. He has come out against the BDS. I will be asking the Senate tomorrow to congratulate him. You either have to congratulate him and condemn Senator Lee Rhiannon or condemn this MLC and congratulate Senator Lee Rhiannon. It will be interesting where you go. You cannot run, you cannot hide and you have to stand up and be counted. You have been dodging the issue for the last three months.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell, I know those comments were through the chair!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also am concerned about the response from the commissioner. I would have hoped that the commissioner might have placed some great weight on the fact that the resolution to which he was responding was in fact a practically unanimous resolution of the Senate. I also want to reinforce Senator Abetz and Boswell's view that boycotts of Jewish businesses are repugnant to any democratically minded Australian. I acknowledge that a feature of the Australian democracy, in our easygoing way, is that people are free, within certain very confined grounds, to say anything and to participate in demonstrations and strikes. That is the way we are in Australia. We would never want that taken away so that we were not free to express our views and our opinions. But there is a concern that this involves Jewish businesses. It brings back the perceptions, understandings and a view of history—as Senator Abetz mentioned. These are not subjective comments; this is the history. In Germany in the 1930s through to the 1940s, and to a lesser extent in some other European countries, action was taken against busin­esses solely on the basis that the owners of those businesses happened to be Jewish. I cannot quote but I know enough about German history during the 1930s to know that both Hitler and Goebbels would have had reasons which they would explain to the public of Germany as to why the activity in Germany at the time was not being dealt with in a way in which Australians and most freedom-loving people around the world would have responded. I know enough of Goebbels's history to say that he would have given an explanation and if you wanted to believe it you could easily have done so. The incident to which Senator Boswell referred and which he has been passionate about for some time involves the boycott of a business on the sole basis, as I understand it, that it is Jewish. At a cursory glance, maybe it does make a point about some incident that is happening overseas. But here it is the sort of explanation that Goebbels would have given. He would have given it glibly and cleverly, as most propagandists do. In Australia at this stage of our history, or at any stage, we do not want to allow our country to be involved in any sorts of boycotts that impact on people's businesses, their livelihoods and their ability to act freely because they happen to be Jewish people. I am not as familiar with all of the ins and outs of the Greens political party as Senator Boswell clearly is. I know he has followed this very closely because he is passionate about it. I cannot quite work out what the Greens' view on this issue is. In fact, I have to confess that—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't know themselves.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Williams says, 'They don't know themselves,' but I was going to go on to say that I quite often find myself with that same problem with the Greens. The party—not individuals, I hasten to add—is full of hypocrisy on most of the angles they approach. I cannot wait to speak on something that is coming up very shortly in the Senate, the Tasmanian logging issue, and I know Senator Abetz, Senator Colbeck and others no doubt will want to have a few words on that.

To me, the Greens are hypocritical in their policy approach to many things, but it does appear from my very limited understanding of the Greens' approach to the issue of boycotting Jewish businesses that there are certainly contradictory and conflicting results and approaches. I suspect many of the broader membership of the Greens would want to boycott Jewish businesses for reasons that they would justify to themselves. I appreciate that Senator Brown—whilst I have little respect for his policy approach, I do have some respect for his political cunning—realised that this particular issue cost the Greens a seat in the New South Wales parliament at a recent election. Senator Brown realised that the party in New South Wales was on a course which most New South Welshmen found repugnant. He stepped in to try to, as Senator Boswell said, 'airbrush' that out of the policy of the Greens political party.

We have to be clear and unequivocal on this. I am, as I say, disappointed that the commissioner responded in the way that he did. I would have hoped that this was such an important issue, an issue that received almost unanimous support from this chamber for the ACCC to look into it, that there might have been a different response. I have not been able to fully study Mr Sims's explanation of why he did not but I would have thought it was such an important issue that the comments that Senator Brown and Senator Abetz made on this particular issue would warrant a very serious consideration by the Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

I conclude by again saying how proud I am of Senator Boswell, who has raised this, and my other colleagues. I know it is an issue that Senator Abetz has very strong views on as well. I know that many in the government also have very strong views. We must never allow Australia to be placed in a situation where businesses are attacked, where people's livelihoods are attacked, where their freedom to do what everyone else in Australia can do is impeded upon simply because the owners of those businesses happen to be of Jewish extraction. We must never let that happen in Australia. Anything that we, the ACCC or Victoria Police can do to stop that is something that should be encouraged and supported.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, the time on this document runs out at 5.33.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. That gives me ample time to rebut the last 20 minutes of nonsense we have heard from the other side. No doubt Senator Macdonald in particular had wanted to talk this out to defend Senator Abetz from the indefensible, which is the next document we will be looking at, where he failed to respond to a request from the Senate for information. That being said, we have just heard a very tawdry submission to the Senate on a complete rejection by the ACCC.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I take offence at the imputation Senator Bob Brown just made about my contribution to the Senate, alleging that my contribution was for some purpose quite contrary to what it was. I suggest that he be asked to withdraw that imputation.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, are you prepared to withdraw that imputation as requested by Senator Macdonald?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. That was a nonsense of a contribution, and I will do nothing of the sort.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I will allow you to continue your discussion. Please ensure that you remain within the standing orders.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very wise ruling. It was a very poor attempt by Senator Macdonald to take up time defending the indefensible, and my comments on him stand. I wanted to get to the matter at hand, which is a reference, through the President and requested by Senator Boswell, to the ACCC to take action and investigate alleged secondary boycotts against Max Brenner et cetera. The ACCC has said it closely examined the issue and has rejected it. There is no further action to be taken by the ACCC. It is taking a watching brief and finds that effectively Senator Boswell has been wasting its time and wasting this Senate's time on pursuit of a failed political point. Senator Boswell has been a complete failure on that score. The ACCC is the arbiter of that, not I. That having been said, the contributions we have just heard border on the unacceptable for a Senate debate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unacceptable to whom? Unacceptable to you, I can imagine.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We now have Senator Macdonald doing what I did not do to him, and that is interjecting.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

And now Senator Abetz is interjecting. They believe they have some God-given right to be able to run the country in a way that would prevent democracy, prevent peaceful protests, prevent different points of view to theirs. They come with that point of view to ride right over every other Australian's rights in this democratic and peaceful country, and of course we do not stand for that. Anybody who reads what Senator Macdonald, and indeed our good Senator Boswell from Queensland, had to say will see where the trajectory is. It is nasty, it is censorious, it is restrictive, it is inhibitory and it is unworthy of the political process in this country. The senators opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

Then, of course, Senator Macdonald—who is the biggest infractor of the Senate rules in this place and is compounding it with his interjections—cannot even get the name of the Australian Greens right. This representative of the so-called Liberal Party—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Listen to them bellowing from the other side. They do not like being taken on on this. They do not like the fact that they have no argument. They do not like the fact that the ACCC—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take my hanky. Have a little cry.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald is now feigning tears because the ACCC through out of court this attempt to draw one of the country's big arbiters into our political debate and failed. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Senate take note of the resolution from the Chairman of the ACCC.

Question agreed to.