Senator BOURNE(3.45 p.m.) —I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the government to accept that: "Respect for the democratic principles and basic human rights, as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, underpins the internal and international policies of . . . Australia" and to agree to the inclusion of that form of words in any trade agreement with the European Community.

I must say I am surprised that the terms of this urgency motion have come to the attention of the Australian public in general, the European public in general and especially this parliament. The fact that Australia is not prepared to sign a treaty—whether it be about trade, human rights, hot air balloons landing in Australia, defence, economics or anything at all—with human rights clauses in it is absolutely extraordinary. The people whom I have spoken to in Europe about this—indeed anyone I have spoken to around the world, including Australia—also find it absolutely extraordinary.

The level of a nation's commitment to human rights, whether in domestic practices or in foreign policy, is the litmus test for the quality of its democracy. Respect for human rights cannot be separated from any other aspect of government policy. On 10 December last year, both the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) and I addressed the National Press Club on this issue. He stated:

This Government views human rights as an inseparable part of Australia's overall foreign policy approach.

Why then did that minister, in a letter to the Vice President of the European Commission, write:

I have to say that the existence of operative human rights and non-fulfilment provisions as proposed by the Community remains in our view inappropriate in an agreement on trade and co-operation . . . between Australia and the European Community.

The least you can say about that position is that it is thoroughly inconsistent.

The government's position on this raises some very serious questions about the strength and the sincerity of Australia's declared commitment to indivisible human rights. It also raises questions about whether international trade and human rights can and ought to be totally separate. The Democrats do not think they can, nor should they be. Each and every international treaty that we sign ought to contain a reference to upholding the universal declaration of human rights. That is the absolute building block of the basic rights of every single person who belongs to every single one of the 185 nations that make up the United Nations.

Interestingly, the government's position on the trade treaty is being strongly backed by groups such as the Business Council of Australia, but it is of concern to those organisations whose primary focus is on maintaining basic human rights standards—organisations such as Community Aid Abroad, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, the ACTU and many more.

The trade outcomes and objectives statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Fischer) of 5 February this year clearly places Asia at the centre of his strategy. He states that:

. . . we are unique in being a developed country with a strong comparative advantage in the rural and mining industries . . .

I do not think anyone would disagree with that. But if we are at such an advantage in a trade sense, then why not in a human rights capacity as well? One also has to ask, is this furious campaign to engage with Asia in a trade sense actually our trade reality?

The European Union is of great importance to Australia. For example, the European Union is Australia's largest economic partner; larger than Japan when you take into consideration merchandise trade, trade in services, financial transfers and direct foreign investment. I cannot understand the government's position under article 32 of the treaty that gives `any European country the option of walking away from its obligations under the agreement on the basis of undefined human rights criteria'. Those human rights criteria are very well spelt out. They are human rights criteria contained within the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos Horta stated recently, `Human rights are not a Western concept; they are a human concept.'

Let us look at the two articles in the proposed European Union framework to which Australia objects. They are article 1, which declares respect for universal human rights as an essential element of the agreement—and I cannot see a problem with that—and article 32, which allows either party to withdraw from the agreement after lengthy and complicated examination, consultation and negotiation.

Article 32 is referred to as the non-fulfilment clause. It allows either party to withdraw from the treaty in instances where the other party has failed to fulfil an obligation under the agreement. As I have just said, withdrawal is not automatic. Except in circumstances of special urgency, the parties seeking to withdraw from the agreement must supply the other with all relevant information required for a thorough examination of the situation with a view to seeking a solution which is acceptable to both parties. After all—and this makes complete sense—maintenance of the treaty is the paramount consideration.

So what could possibly be the problem? If the government is concerned about the way in which Australia adheres to its international and domestic human rights obligations, then they ought to fix the matter about which they are concerned. But that does not seem to be such an easy proposition. The Deputy Prime Minister has made no secret of the way in which he, as trade minister, feels about human rights. He has indicated that Australia would not allow any reservations over China's human rights record to influence this government's attitude to trade with that country. He has said, `We do not have the capacity of being the world's policing authority or the world's conscience on human rights.' What a very offensive thing to say, but he has said it.

But he did not stop there. He has played down China's brutal occupation of Tibet, and he has rejected trade sanctions against Burma over its appalling human rights record. Based on this record alone, why should the Australian community place any importance in the government upholding human rights in their trade partnerships?

The European trade treaty human rights clause is not the only human rights forum in which the government is seeking to wind back Australia's involvement. Since coming into government, the coalition has been very keen to distance Australia from international forums. We are disturbed by this transition. We believe we must never accept the idea that the internationalisation of the economy forces us to accept lower industrial standards. On the contrary, the internationalisation of the economy is the strongest argument for the internationalisation of labour rights and industrial standards.

We have a sound reputation in that area. Australia was a foundation member of the International Labour Organisation nearly 80 years ago. We have made a contribution to the ILO which is well in excess of our size as an economic power. We have developed a strong reputation as a defender of human rights and labour rights throughout the world. And an essential element of our ability to raise questions about human rights in other countries is our credibility. As the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said on 6 February this year, `Australia's commitment to human rights is unequivocal and our record is second to none.' I certainly hope that is still the case.

But we cannot rest there. We must continue to practise what we preach. Australia cannot allow an ideological perspective on the value of the ILO, for instance, to cloud the import ance of ratifying treaties and conventions which exist to protect the human rights of our overseas counterparts as well as our own population. In the words of Gough Whitlam:

. . . State indifference or intransigence are no longer excuses for our national failure to meet our international obligations.

How true.

A trend is emerging of international withdrawal and irresponsibility within this government and, indeed, around the world. At all times this government should be seeking to meet the grade of international best practice in absolutely everything that we do. We cannot expect to even come close by not signing the human rights clause in the EU trade treaty. If we are to remain a respected player in international human rights forums, we have to practise what we preach. The Prime Minister is right when he said that. But neither he nor his cabinet ministers are acting in accordance with that commitment to anywhere near the extent that we would like to see.

Withdrawal from the ILO is merely one United Nations forum from which this government has retreated. Australia has reduced its expenditure on UNICEF, the world population fund, UNDP, UNRWA, UNEP, the Global Environment Facility and the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund, and the reproductive health program in the WHO. Contributions to the UNHCR, the International Red Cross and emergency aid have also been reduced. The government also has announced its withdrawal from the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. It has cut back on grants to a number of community based organisations, including the United Nations Association of Australia. Most of this has been done without consultation. So where is the commitment to human rights in that?

The government maintains that human rights and labour standards are the province of such United Nations organisations. But with withdrawals and cutbacks in funding, including our own, this government can easily wipe its hands of any further need to provide for them in negotiations for trade. That all seems so very tidy.

Let us make no mistake about this. In this so-called new era of globalisation, countries will rely more and more upon international law and agreement to develop common responses to global issues. In that sort of climate, generating a positive public response to treaties becomes increasingly important. We have to convince our fellow Australians that we cannot pull up this drawbridge.

There are many problems in this world today, and they can only be solved by governments cooperating to set national and international standards and international rules. This government is now fighting very hard to ensure that human rights are not linked to trade when, in fact, as we all know, human rights are linked to everything.

What all this adds up to is that Australia is going backwards on basic human rights. I believe that more than a decade's worth of economic rationalism has a lot to do with that, and it has led to the point where we are in danger of instilling in Australians a sense that human rights are not important, that they can and should be downgrade and traded off in pursuit of more important economic goals. If we do not halt that trend, we will never become a tolerant, mature or civilised society, and we will never be able to influence or to improve human rights either here in Australia or anywhere else in the world.