Former head of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, is the latest to warn against signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, claiming Australia would “regret” signing away sovereignty over government policy. From The AFR:
“I’m probably the outlier here but mark my words, we will regret it, if we sign away our rights.”
“Governments have a right to tax, a right to do a whole lot of stuff, why would you take it away from them?”
Ridout’s concerns of course follows a wide range of experts that have recommended against including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements.
Most notable among these is High Court Chief Justice Robert French, who is the most eminent judge in Australia. Chief Justice French has warned explicitly on the tensions that can exist between these ISDS mechanisms and the legitimate functions of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of governments, and the implications for the rule of law in Australia.
The Productivity Commission also raised explicit concerns about ISDS in its latest Trade and Assistance Review, noting the significant ongoing costs to Australian taxpayers of funding the preparation and defence of such legal action by foreign companies.
Meanwhile, it has been confirmed that the US is highly unlikely to agree to improved sugar access for Australian farmers – a move that is likely to further incite Australian sugar growers – whilst also talking-up intellectual property protections for US pharmaceutical companies:
US Trade Representative Michael Froman provided the strongest signal yet that the US is reluctant to allow Australian cane growers to sell more of their sugar in the US, saying the Obama Administration will not undermine American farmers during the final stages of negotiations for the TPP.
The warning from Mr Froman is a potential blow to broader agricultural trade liberalisation under the Trans-Pacific Partnership involving 12 countries…
“This is obviously an area of great sensitivity to our market here and whatever we do in that area won’t undermine the sugar program,” Mr Froman said.
He also confirmed the US was seeking to strengthen intellectual property protections for American inventors, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector.
So here we have a deal that would fail to adequately lower agricultural barriers, but would raise costs to Australian consumers and taxpayers via tighter patent/copyright protections for US firms, and could also allow foreign firms to sue the Australian Government (taxpayers) for legislating in the national interest. Why then is Trade Minister, Andrew Robb, planning on signing the TPP?
In an another damning assessment, Business Council of Australia head, Kate Carnell, has admitted that Australia’s FTAs have the ability to make things more complicated and costly for business:
“If you think about the fact that 96 per cent of Australian businesses are SMEs, 1700 page agreements that are fundamentally different makes it really difficult for the business.”
“They can be quite opaque documents,” Ms Carnell said, adding that it can be particularly challenging for smaller firms without large legal teams or substantial resources.
“One of the challenges for us to make these agreements more accessible to more Australian businesses,” she said
Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?
