Victorian Trades Hall Council. The voice of Victorian workers since 1856.

• Inside Trades Hall
•  > Secretary's Report
•  > 2010 Archives

Australian Uranium for sale and IR

26th March 2010
By Brian Boyd, VTHC Secretary

It was Friday 19^th March last. A story about the Federal Government giving positive consideration to the sale of Australian uranium to Russia, hit the media for less than 24 hours. The issue then sank without a trace. This is not an unusual occurrence in itself.

However, what was unusual was the accompanying emphatic statement that the government would not be selling such nuclear material (in the form of yellow cake) to India.

India is apparently crying foul, as Australia is also allowing sales of such material to China.

At 11.00 am on ABC Radio News that day, Federal Trade Minister Simon Crean said India’s ‘crime’ was that it hadn’t signed the international non-proliferation treaty.

What has all this to do with IR?

Simply this. A week earlier the International Labour Office in Geneva (the ILO) released its most recent up to date “Committee of Experts” Report on how world government’s apply ILO labour standards. The report was damning of the Rudd/Gillard Fair Work Act in terms of where it breached ILO Conventions. In key areas Australian workers’ rights to industrial action and bargaining were being severely restricted. The ongoing operations of the ABCC received particular criticism.

I raise this because of the double standard at play. International law like the Non-Proliferation Treaty should be adhered to. But so should the ILO conventions on workers’ rights, to which Australia is also a signatory. Simon Crean, an ex-ACTU leader knows this all too well.

We don’t want Australian uranium to be used in making nuclear weapons. But we shouldn’t have Australian workers negotiating with employers with severe laws restricting their ability to act collectively.

At the 4^th March ACTU Executive Meeting in Melbourne there was a discussion with special guest Madeleine Albright (a former U.S. Secretary of State). She raised the issue of the viability of the ILO.

Albright was interested in what the ACTU and the global international union movement think of the ILO.

Sharan Burrow took it upon herself to respond. She said amongst other things that “the ILO is uniquely placed within the UN construct…being a tripartite body”. She suggested it was important to push social wage outcomes, industry and development policies, collective bargaining and the creation of real jobs and the ILO is an important organisation to deliver on such issues.

“We [the ACTU] are very big supporters of the ILO”…it may “need some reform” but it is an established vehicle that can respond to the global economic situation, emphasised Ms Burrow.

We are now “concentrating on the G20”, with the UN being “in some trouble”, however “I hope the ILO will have the same status as the IMF”, as discussions about the world economy occur. Pushing labour rights and social justice by the ILO will be important in such forums.

It is hoped that when Sharan Burrow takes up her new position at the International Trade Union Confederation in June as the new General Secretary, she will pursue the need for compliance with the ILO conventions, especially by the Rudd/Gillard government. For by the 25^th March Federal IR Minister Gillard put on the public record once again her government’s reluctance to have an IR agenda for the next election. She claimed her government has “got the [IR] laws right”, knowing full well the contents of the recent ILO report.

It doesn’t help when the ACTU claims the Fair Work Act was “a great start” and was ‘a major advance’ on WorkChoices.