John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From time to time the Standing Committee on Petitions follows up on some petitions that have been presented to the House by examining them at roundtable meetings. The committee also follows up on the government’s response to some petitions at the hearings it holds with relevant public servants here in Parliament House. Last week the committee had an unusual opportunity to follow up a petition and the ministerial response with participation from both a petitioner and the relevant Public Service representatives.

I mention this petition not because it has the greatest number of signatures, although it had more than 8,000 signatures, or because it has much greater merit than the many other petitions that the committee sees. The committee does not seek to make these value judgments. In its way the petition itself was typical of some petitions and the questions they raise, but it was unusual to have the advocate and government experts available together.

The petition, like many that come before the House, was about an international issue that concerns many Australians and prompts them to act, to coordinate their efforts and to call for action here. Questions that often follow the raising of an issue of global concern, such as this one, are: is there any solution to a problem such as this and what is the appropriate role for any government in the circumstances? Needless to say, there are different views.

The subject matter of this petition was the use of the worst forms of child labour in producing cocoa in West Africa and an agreement in 2001 by major industry groups to take a number of steps, including developing voluntary standards, to grow and process cocoa beans and products in such a way as to comply with the International Labour Organisation’s Convention 182. That convention seeks to eliminate the worst forms of child labour. Some major companies in the cocoa and chocolate industry have met the standards, at least for some of their products.

One aim of that 2001 agreement was, by 2005, to label products to confirm that goods have been produced free from the worst forms of child labour. The petition that the Petitions Committee considered called for a deadline to be imposed on the importation of goods to Australia that are not certified as being produced in this way. It was useful for the committee to draw out the history of the use of child labour in producing cocoa in West Africa, which dates back to the lowering of farm incomes in West African countries in the 1990s. The sad result has been the involvement of thousands of children, working in unhealthy and dangerous conditions without access to education or health care. Naturally, this is not something any of us wants to think about when we enjoy eating cocoa and cocoa products. The petitioner told the committee that the end objective was to ensure that the farmers are paid a reasonable price. This would be expected to enable them to let their children attend school. The minister's response to the petition had been received by the committee and published so that the petitioners were aware of the government's views on the issue. From the committee's perspective it was valuable to hear from the representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about Australia's international commitments to end child exploitation, and how those commitments connect with the request made in this petition. The representatives confirmed the grave concern with which child exploitation is regarded and also referred to the broader context: the eradication and whether compulsory certification of products is the most effective way of reducing poverty.

It was also useful for us to find out what prompted the petitioners to use the petitions process to promote their cause. In this instance, the committee was told that the revised petitioning process, in which petitions are likely to receive a formal response, was a factor. I am not sure how satisfied the petitioners might have been with the information they received, but certainly the committee was pleased to speak to their representatives and to have the petitioners observe the discussion, as well as the subsequent one we held with the department officials. It was an interesting and thought-provoking discussion, thanks to the preparations of the petitioners' representative and the department's representatives.

The international focus at the hearing was continued when the committee asked representatives of AusAID about a petition on the level of Australia's foreign aid and the minister's response. The petition called for a substantial increase in Australia's official development assistance to raise it to 0.7 per cent of Australia's gross national income and bring it into line with the United Nations goals. The minister has stated that the government is committed to increasing aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015-16 and, after that, as economic and fiscal conditions permit, to progressively increase it to 0.7 per cent of gross national income.

The hearing gave the committee an opportunity to discuss the petition itself and Australia's objectives in its development assistance commitments. The committee was also able to follow up the minister's response regarding commitments towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by the deadline of 2015, in particular on Australia's contribution so far to achieving the targets. A transcript of the relevant segments of the hearing will later be sent to the principal petitioner associated with each of the petitions and will be available on the committee's website.

Finally, from a Petitions Committee perspective we would be very pleased if petitioners were able to have issues they have raised resolved—but, clearly, in the majority of cases that does not happen. The certain value that we see in the process arises from the fact that the House, through the committee, ensures that issues are raised and that the responses from the government are received and made public.