The Federal Government’s position on putting trade ahead of human rights is giving the country a bad name in Europe and the United States, and rightly so. The Government refuses to sign a wide-ranging trade agreement with Europe because the treaty contains a commitment to human rights and Australia is opposing the US and European position at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Singapore this week linking free trade with labour rights.
Both objections are difficult to understand.
In the case of the European Union, under European Union law, the section on human rights must be included in all EU agreements. The section says: “”The parties reaffirm the importance they attach to the principles of the United Nations charter and the respective democratic principles of human rights. Respect for human rights and democratic principles is the basis for the cooperation between the parties and for the provisions of this agreement and it constitutes an essential element of the agreement.”
Under international and contract law “”essential element” means that if that element is breached the other side can repudiate the agreement.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says that the Australian objection centres around allowing the Europeans to unilaterally repudiate the agreement according to the European view of Australian performance in the human-rights area. It is a legalistic objection. All other countries concluding trade and cooperation agreements with the EU have signed the clause, including South Korea. In fact, the clause is poor a broad statement of principle about which Australia should have nothing to fear, rather than a clause the EU would trigger on a minor issue.
Mr Downer says there are other objections to the EU agreement, on agriculture and the clause on government purchasing that might infringe the rights of the Australian states. Maybe so, but they do not prevent Australia agreeing to the human-rights clause. It is that failure which is causing international embarrassment for Australia.
On the World Trade Organisation issue, the Government has an almost paranoid fear of anything that might be seen to put unions in a favourable light. Australia has joined Asian nations in insisting that labour rights such as minimum wages and freedom of association should not be linked to freeing the world’s markets. This is in opposition to several Western nations, including the US and the European Union, which want some core labour standards linked to trade liberalisation.
Trade Minister Tim Fischer argues that these are matters for the International Labour Organisation. But they trade should not be seen in isolation and as and end in itself. As a general principle, free trade is a worthwhile cause and can help raise living standards, and that is the context it should be seen in. Free trade will be of no help to people if governments allow breaches of human rights and labour standards and degradation of the environment in the production of goods that go on to the markets created by free-trade. Other nations in the World Trade Organisation should be entitled to put import barriers against goods produced under these conditions.
Australia has nothing to lose from this approach. The labour issues at stake are major matters, like child labour and freedom of association, not the petty matters that concentrate the minds of the Australian industrial-relations scene. Australia is in danger of losing reputation in Europe and the US, and even leaving the moral issue aside, there is nothing to gain in Asia.