In November of 2016 Australia ratified the Paris Agreement, a United Nations Instrument aimed at mitigating climate change by capping global temperature increases at 2 degrees prior to pre-industrial levels.
Despite ratification, and according to the Climate Council, in 2017 Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions increased for the third consecutive year. Catastrophic bush fires, ocean acidification, coral bleaching and extinction have caused national outcry leading to a rise in climate related protests and boycotts.
Australia continues to do little. In fact, at the Queensland Resources Council, Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, stressed the need for regulatory measures to restrict climate change activism. The PM referred to protestors and boycotters as “anarchists” who seek to “deny the liberties of Australians” and pose a threat to the economy, sparking backlash from human rights advocates who argue that the PM is impeding free speech.
THE PM’S PROPOSAL AMOUNTS TO AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The PM proposes to adopt a “serious mechanism that can successfully outlaw these indulgent and selfish practices”—but the proposals would represent a grave assault on the fundamental human right to free speech:
1. Penalties for protests
The PM would seek to impose harsh penalties for protesting that would require extensive police resources and support to detain and arrest large groups of protestors.
But even institutional police forces appear unwilling to enforce this type of penalty. The Queensland Police Service recently issued a statement acknowledging that they “remain committed to working with groups that are cooperative in facilitating protests through lawful activities”.
2. A Ban on Secondary Boycotts
Morrison also seeks to ban secondary boycotts, claiming that the economy will suffer from businesses refusing to engage with brown energy supporters. But such a ban would arguably be unlawful. Professor George Williams, Dean of Law at the University of New South Wales, contents that this move would risk breaching the implied freedom of political communication in the constitution and “would likely see a challenge mounted in the High Court”.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
The right to freedom of speech is protected under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission 1986 gave effect to Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR. Climate change activists are entitled to use protesting and boycotting as political expression.
THE PM’S PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED “UNDEMOCRATIC”
The PM’s proposal has been criticised as being unnecessary given the slew of boycott laws already in place, with the Human Rights Law Centre viewing the proposal as another step forward in an “undemocratic trend”:
2016: New South Wales extends police powers through the adoption of public safety orders and anti-protest laws. Both measures restrict the movement or protest of individuals or groups, in situations where they are seen to pose safety risks.
2018: New South Wales Crown Land Regulation grants power to officials to prevent persons “taking part in any gathering, meeting or assembly”.
2019: New South Wales Right to Farm Bill proposes to increase penalties for unlawfully entering and disrupting “inclosed land”. The Bill seeks to increase the penalty from $5,500 to $22,000 with a 3-year imprisonment period if acting in unison with two or more individuals or due to aggravating circumstances.
GOVERNMENTS MUST PROTECT RIGHTS, NOT RESTRICT RIGHTS, IN THE FACE OF THE CLIMATE BREAKDOWN
Climate change, and its consequences, will only get worse. Instead of tackling the underlying problem, the government’s proposals amount to killing the messenger.
In fact, the instinct of the government to restrict freedom in response to climate change, is a troubling development. Restricting freedom cannot be the knee-jerk response to the climate crisis, or else, such government behaviour becomes the foundation and future precedent for further deprivations of rights, as weather conditions worsen.
Tellingly, when boycotts and activism are used to support and sustain fossil fuel corporations (instead of challenging them), the government appears to have no problem.
In 2017 Minister for Resources, Matthew Canavan, dubbed the “Minister for Coal” encouraged the public to boycott Westpac after the bank decided to stop investing in mining companies, and in 2010 mining tycoons Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest protested against the Labour Government’s proposal to introduce a “mining tax”.
When Canavan, Rinehart and Forest engaged in political demonstrations they were viewed as exercising their democratic rights; yet, protesting and boycotting in opposition to the interests of the aforementioned billionaires amounts to “abusing the law”.
Laila studied law at university and wants to use her education to advocate for and spread awareness about human rights. As a passionate believer in justice and equality, she sees discussion as a way to educate and develop solutions to human rights issues.