Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced in November 2019 that his government was "working to identify mechanisms that can successfully outlaw" secondary boycotts targeting mining companies and environmental protection campaigns [1].
Attorney-General Christian Porter stated the government was investigating modifications to secondary boycott laws, with proposed maximum fines increasing from $750,000 to $10 million [2].
The government lost the federal election in May 2022 before any new boycott restriction laws could be introduced, effectively ending the initiative [4].
The Abbott government (2013-2015) did consider reviewing legal protections related to secondary boycotts, but the 2015 final report recommended **no changes** to existing exemptions protecting environmental and consumer boycotts [5].
Boycott restrictions are not a Coalition-specific policy.** Secondary boycott restrictions have existed in Australian law since the 1970s, originating under Fraser, but the foundational modern framework was established under **Labor governments** (Hawke-Keating, 1983-1996) [6].
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which contains secondary boycott restrictions, was enacted under Labor during the Rudd-Gillard period (2007-2013) [7].
**2.
Labor supported similar restrictions when in power.** The Labor government under Kevin Rudd "waved through" Peter Costello's 2007 boycott bill that targeted those seeking international boycotts of Australian wool [8].
Current Labor opposes, but historically supported, boycott restrictions.** While Labor opposed Morrison's 2019-2020 expansion of boycott restrictions [9], this represents a shift from Labor's previous bipartisan support for secondary boycott laws.
The environmental boycott exemption has been in place for decades.** The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 already contains exemptions for environmental protection campaigns [11].
The claim about "slave labour" is not substantiated.** No research identified any Coalition proposal specifically targeting boycotts related to supply chain labor abuses.
The Harper Review (2015) found no empirical evidence.** The comprehensive Harper Review of competition law received 17 submissions about secondary boycotts in environmental contexts but found **no compelling evidence of actual secondary boycott activity** within the environmental protection exemption [13].
The original sources are from **The Guardian Australia**, which maintains generally high journalistic standards but exhibits a known editorial stance critical of Coalition governments [14].
The Guardian's reporting on boycott issues has been substantively accurate regarding facts of Morrison's proposals, though the framing emphasizes the government's attempts rather than their failure to pass legislation.
The Guardian articles correctly identified that Coalition proposals would restrict boycott rights, but the headlines ("Greens blast ban on boycotts" and "May ban environmental boycotts") created an impression of certainty that did not materialize, as no bans were actually implemented [15].
**Did Labor government do something similar?**
Research confirmed: **Yes, Labor has supported secondary boycott restrictions, though under different circumstances.**
**Key findings:**
- **Rudd-Gillard Labor (2007-2013):** Supported Peter Costello's 2007 bill restricting international wool boycotts, demonstrating willingness to restrict boycotts for industry protection [16].
- **Hawke-Keating Labor (1983-1996):** Established the foundational secondary boycott restriction framework that both subsequent Labor and Coalition governments maintained [17].
- **Abbott Government (2013-2015):** Considered reviewing boycott protections but did not implement changes.
* * * *
The 2015 Harper Review recommended no modifications to environmental exemptions [18].
- **Morrison Government (2019-2020):** Proposed the most aggressive expansion of boycott restrictions, specifically targeting environmental and mining-related boycotts.
This proposal **failed to pass parliament** despite being pursued more forcefully than previous governments [19].
- **Albanese Labor (2022-present):** Has opposed BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaigns targeting Israel but has **not proposed new boycott restrictions** or attempted to narrow existing exemptions [20].
**Comparison assessment:** The Morrison government's attempt to expand boycott restrictions was more aggressive than Labor's maintenance of existing law, but historically, Labor governments established the framework and previously supported boycott restrictions for industry protection.
* * * *
The distinction is one of degree rather than kind.
**The government's rationale for boycott restrictions:**
Coalition ministers argued that secondary boycotts and protest campaigns damaged Australia's international reputation and threatened economic interests, particularly in the mining sector [21].
The government contended that secondary boycott restrictions were necessary to protect the competitive market and ensure economic stability [23].
**The counterargument and limitations:**
Legal scholars and civil society organizations argued that the Morrison government's proposals would constitute an unreasonable restriction on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication [24].
The Australia Institute noted that Coalition MPs themselves had frequently called for boycotts at various times, highlighting the selective application of the principle [25].
Critically, the Harper Review's 2015 finding that there was no empirical evidence of environmental groups engaging in unlawful secondary boycotts undermined the government's case for needing expanded restrictions [27].
**Key context:** Secondary boycott restrictions are **not unique to the Coalition.** Both major parties have supported these restrictions at various times, with Labor establishing the framework and previously supporting restrictions for industry protection.
However, Morrison's government did pursue a notably more aggressive stance in attempting to expand these restrictions specifically to environmental activism—a proposal that ultimately failed due to parliamentary opposition [28].
The Coalition government did propose restrictions on boycotts, and these proposals would have reduced consumer power by restricting environmental and secondary boycott campaigns.
In reality: (1) secondary boycott restrictions have bipartisan origins dating back decades; (2) Labor governments both established the framework and previously supported similar restrictions; (3) Morrison's proposed expansion failed to pass parliament; (4) no actual restrictions beyond those already existing were implemented; and (5) the empirical justification for the restrictions was questionable, as the Harper Review found no evidence of unlawful environmental boycotts [29].
The claim is substantively accurate regarding Morrison's intentions and proposals (2019-2020) but lacks the crucial context that this was an attempted escalation of existing bipartisan policy, not a novel Coalition restriction [30].
The Coalition government did propose restrictions on boycotts, and these proposals would have reduced consumer power by restricting environmental and secondary boycott campaigns.
In reality: (1) secondary boycott restrictions have bipartisan origins dating back decades; (2) Labor governments both established the framework and previously supported similar restrictions; (3) Morrison's proposed expansion failed to pass parliament; (4) no actual restrictions beyond those already existing were implemented; and (5) the empirical justification for the restrictions was questionable, as the Harper Review found no evidence of unlawful environmental boycotts [29].
The claim is substantively accurate regarding Morrison's intentions and proposals (2019-2020) but lacks the crucial context that this was an attempted escalation of existing bipartisan policy, not a novel Coalition restriction [30].