Labour rights as human rights : workers' safety at work in Australian-based supply chains

The increase of buyer-driven supply chains, outsourcing and other forms of non-traditional employment has resulted in challenges for labour market regulation. One business model which has created substantial regulatory challenges is supply chains. The supply chain model involves retailers purchasing products from brand corporations who then outsource the manufacturing of the work to traders who contract with factories or outworkers who actually manufacture the clothing and textiles. This business model results in time and cost pressures being pushed down the supply chain which has resulted in sweatshops where workers systematically have their labour rights violated. Literally millions of workers work in dangerous workplaces where thousands are killed or permanently disabled every year. This thesis has analysed possible regulatory responses to provide workers a right to safety and health in supply chains which provide products for Australian retailers. This thesis will use a human rights standard to determine whether Australia is discharging its human rights obligations in its approach to combating domestic and foreign labour abuses. It is beyond this thesis to analyse Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) laws in every jurisdiction. Accordingly, this thesis will focus upon Australian domestic laws and laws in one of Australia’s major trading partners, the Peoples’ Republic of China (China). It is hypothesised that Australia is currently breaching its human rights obligations through failing to adequately regulate employees’ safety at work in Australian-based supply chains. To prove this hypothesis, this thesis will adopt a three- phase approach to analysing Australia’s regulatory responses. Phase 1 will identify the standard by which Australia’s regulatory approach to employees’ health and safety in supply chains can be judged. This phase will focus on analysing how workers’ rights to safety as a human right imposes a moral obligation on Australia to take reasonablely practicable steps regulate Australian-based supply chains. This will form a human rights standard against which Australia’s conduct can be judged. Phase 2 focuses upon the current regulatory environment. If existing regulatory vehicles adequately protect the health and safety of employees, then Australia will have discharged its obligations through simply maintaining the status quo. Australia currently regulates OHS through a combination of ‘hard law’ and ‘soft law’ regulatory vehicles. The first part of phase 2 analyses the effectiveness of traditional OHS laws in Australia and in China. The final part of phase 2 then analyses the effectiveness of the major soft law vehicle ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (CSR). The fact that employees are working in unsafe working conditions does not mean Australia is breaching its human rights obligations. Australia is only required to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure human rights are realized. Phase 3 identifies four regulatory vehicles to determine whether they would assist Australia in discharging its human rights obligations. Phase 3 then analyses whether Australia could unilaterally introduce supply chain regulation to regulate domestic and extraterritorial supply chains. Phase 3 also analyses three public international law regulatory vehicles. This chapter considers the ability of the United Nations Global Compact, the ILO’s Better Factory Project and a bilateral agreement to improve the detection and enforcement of workers’ right to safety and health.

Regulating IVF and pre-implantation tissue-typing for the creation of "saviour siblings" : a harm analysis

Scientific discoveries, developments in medicine and health issues are the constant focus of media attention and the principles surrounding the creation of so called ‘saviour siblings’ are of no exception. The development in the field of reproductive techniques has provided the ability to genetically analyse embryos created in the laboratory to enable parents to implant selected embryos to create a tissue-matched child who may be able to cure an existing sick child. The research undertaken in this thesis examines the regulatory frameworks overseeing the delivery of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Australia and the United Kingdom and considers how those frameworks impact on the accessibility of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures for the creation of ‘saviour siblings’. In some jurisdictions, the accessibility of such techniques is limited by statutory requirements. The limitations and restrictions imposed by the state in relation to the technology are analysed in order to establish whether such restrictions are justified. The analysis is conducted on the basis of a harm framework. The framework seeks to establish whether those affected by the use of the technology (including the child who will be created) are harmed. In order to undertake such evaluation, the concept of harm is considered under the scope of John Stuart Mill’s liberal theory and the Harm Principle is used as a normative tool to judge whether the level of harm that may result, justifies state intervention or restriction with the reproductive decision-making of parents in this context. The harm analysis conducted in this thesis seeks to determine an appropriate regulatory response in relation to the use of pre-implantation tissue-typing for the creation of ‘saviour siblings’. The proposals outlined in the last part of this thesis seek to address the concern that harm may result from the practice of pre-implantation tissue-typing. The current regulatory frameworks in place are also analysed on the basis of the harm framework established in this thesis. The material referred to in this thesis reflects the law and policy in place in Australia and the UK at the time the thesis was submitted for examination (December 2009).