“I don’t see,” said Liberal Senator Tchen, “why Australian corporations would behave any differently overseas from how they do here.” This was one of several comments met by incredulous laughter from the audience at the Oxfam Community Aid Abroad forum: “Globalisation and Corporate Responsibility”.

The forum, held at RMIT on Monday 22 October, was hosted by Oxfam-CAA in order to attempt to communicate the major parties’ positions on global issues. The Oxfam-CAA MC began with a tale of woe about a certain mining company that managed to contaminate a vital river in Papua New Guinea, an example illustrating the the consequences of corporate neglect and indifference to ordinary people. To address the problems of globalisation, especially the neglect of the environment and of the rights of workers in the name of competitiveness – the Democrats tabled a bill called the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill 2001 in the Senate. It was defeated by the Liberal party, according to Liberal representative Senator Tchen, because there is a wealth of difficulties attached to applying the Bill.

The Democrats’ Private Senator’s Bill aims to “impose environmental, employment, health and safety and human rights standards on the conduct of Australian corporations which employ more than 100 persons in a foreign country” (1). It requires companies to take all reasonable measures to limit their impact on their environment, to take environmental impact assessments on all new developments, and ensure health and safety standards and reasonable hours are provided for workers. It also outlaws forced or compulsory labour, including child labour, and prohibits discrimination by employers on such bases as gender, race, sexuality, political persuasion and social origin. It would make corporations accountable for their business practices and attempt to monitor and enforce their tax compliance. Violations under the bill would be actionable under the Federal Court of Australia.
The Greens advocate a largely global response to a global problem. They propose the establishment of an International Criminal Court and an International Environmental Court. Moreover, they believe the role of the International Court of Justice should be augmented to enable them to deal more effectively with human rights abuses. Human rights abuses, they insist, must take precedence over any political or economic considerations. The Greens support international moves to limit land degradation, to stop overfishing and to reduce all forms of pollution.

Speaking on the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill, the Liberal party representative, Senator Tchen, asserted that, it is unfair to impose our human rights standards upon developing nations. But what nobody argued was that there is a glaring power differential between developing nations and the corporations proposing to invest in them. The only way developing countries can compete for corporate investment is to keep production costs low. This means lowering workers’ wages and conditions and removing costly environmental protection measures. If corporations were bound to a set of laws that laid down minimum standards in such areas, they could no longer play developing countries off against each other. But the Liberal party refuses to impose regulations on corporations; Tchen said, if left to their own devices, each corporation would self-regulate to become a benevolent global citizen.

Speaking on Labor’s behalf was Senator Brian Cooney. “There’s nothing wrong with the WTO,” he told the forum. When many audience members giggled insanely, he held up a hand. “It’s just a matter of the way it’s run,” he explained earnestly. “Now if you won’t accept that, we’re going to have a real communication problem.”

Labor’s line, as far as domestic laws were concerned, is that any corporate regulations should be voluntary and made in consultation with the corporations themselves. This again rests on the entirely erroneous premise that corporations can be trusted to account for the interests of anyone but themselves without suitable outside pressure.

Whatever these representatives said at the forum, it is clear that both the Liberal and Labor parties are blind to any issues other than economic growth. Certainly John Howard made this clear when he spoke to an APEC forum about his labour reform practices, including waterfront “reform” -ie union smashing – and their role in Australia’s shoring up to enter the global marketplace. Not to mention his proud introduction of tax cuts to the wealthy research and development sector, also in the name of globalisation. He was aware, he said, of the “adjustment challenges” caused by globalisation of the marketplace. But he brushed these aside as indisputably outweighed by the benefits of the process. Labor is similarly committed to free enterprise at all cost. Shadow Minister for Trade, Peter Cook, said in a media statement that the ALP fully endorsed free trade and wholeheartedly rejected a fair trade, or even a “free and fair trade” agenda. Simon Crean, shadow treasurer, when asked in an interview if globalisation would help the poor, tried to change the subject, and generally betrayed his party’s pig-headed, economic rationalist approach.

Clearly, it is bodies like the WTO and their oppressive laws that are at the heart of the push to place as much profit in the hands of a few as possible to the detriment of ordinary people, especially those in developing countries. But that is no excuse for ignoring possibilities for local and incremental changes. Without outside pressure, transnational corporations have no impetus to change their activities.