Senator BROWN(12.54 p.m.) —I move:

(1)   Page 28 (after line 11), at the end of Schedule 10, add:

Trade Practices Act 1974

21 Paragraph 45DD(3)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

   (a)   the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is related to environmental protection, consumer protection, protection of human rights or promotion of peace or Aboriginal land rights.

      Note:   The heading to subsection 45DD(3) is replaced by the heading:

   "Dominant purpose of conduct related to environment protection, consumer protection, protection of human rights or promotion of peace or Aboriginal land rights ".

22 Paragraph 45DD(3)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

23 Subsections 45DD(4) and (5)

Repeal the subsections.

I have moved this amendment because I, on behalf of the Australian Greens, have continued to have the concern that the legislation as amended will potentially penalise a whole range of community groups, including unions, in Australia if they undertake secondary boycott action or what appears to be secondary boycott action in the interests of social justice, consumer protection, protection of human rights or the promotion of peace or Aboriginal land rights, for example. These do not come within the ambit of the exclusion clause, which refers to the environment and consumer protection. Last year we had a long and detailed discussion or debate in this chamber about these clauses in the legislation.

My legal advice is that community organisations from the Wilderness Society through to Greenpeace, the maritime unions and social justice groups will be threatened with up to a $750,000 fine if they take part in action which is found by a court to be secondary boycott action when their intent is to promote civil rights, peace and Aboriginal rights, for example.

I gave the prospective example during the committee hearings last time that, were Aboriginal groups or certainly environmental groups or social justice groups joined with Aboriginal groups to blockade a uranium mine—for example, the Jabiluka proposal specifically—they have the threat of this legislation hanging over their head. I would be very pleased indeed if the minister could reassure the committee that that is not the case. It would clear the air.

I became all the more concerned about this legislation after it was passed because 23 days after its enactment on 1 January a seaman aboard a foreign vessel jumped ship in Newcastle and almost lost his life escaping from the deplorable situation aboard that ship. The maritime unions were unable to take the usual course of putting bans on that ship while things were rectified aboard because the threat of legal action under this section was hanging over their head.

The shipping company involved took legal action. I am not sure whether it was specifically under the new provisions of the Workplace Relations Act but that threat was there. Let us remind ourselves that it is not just a threat of community service. It is a $750,000 fine—and it is a $750,000 fine because the intent of this legislation is to put unions and community groups out of business, to bank rupt them, effectively, to make them insolvent. That is a very serious matter for the officers of the community groups or unions to take into account.

There has been conjecture within conservation groups as to whether, for example, a blockade on a woodchip ship or a coal carrying or uranium carrying ship might not invoke the penalty of a three-quarter of a million dollars fine of a group that was directly involved or that had even given advice about such a blockade. It would help greatly if the minister or Senator Parer were able to stand up in this committee and say, `These concerns are wrong. Under this legislation, community organisations, environment groups, social justice groups and Aboriginal communities will not and cannot be penalised. This $750,000 threat does not apply to them.' That would help clear the air.

It would further help clear the air if the parliamentary secretary was able to say something about the unions with a humanitarian record like the maritime unions, which have effectively brought to dock the ships of shame with deplorable conditions. We have heard about them. This includes torture, rape and depravation of basic human rights, throwing overboard basically imprisonment on ships without pay—not for months but for years—of seamen who happen to find themselves under a flag of convenience on the wrong ship with the wrong captain in the hands of the wrong company.

That has not been allowed in Australia. These ships coming into our waters have had to come good. They have had to improve their standards and repay moneys where seamen have not been paid for years. That is because the union has been able to say, `Until you do the right thing and until you act in a responsible manner, this ship goes no further.'

The legislation as I read it says, `Well, a maritime union group that wants to take such action against such deplorable conditions in Australia'—we are talking about ships in Australian ports—`runs the risk of a three-quarters of a million dollar fine.' I would like to know that that is not so. Unless I can get a categorical assurance from the government that that is not so, I stick by this amendment, which goes some way to making that assurance. It says that group actions, `the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is related to environmental protection, consumer protection, protection of human rights or promotion of peace or Aboriginal land rights', are not under such a threat. It is as simple as that.

I do not know what Senator Murray's position on this is, but I hope that, with the passage of time, the Democrats may have reconsidered the awful potential consequences for community groups and unions of this quite draconian section of this legislation.