Politics Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
knife said:
http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-opposition-calls-for-tpp-text-to-be-made-public-7000023908/

"Labor spokesperson for Trade, Senator Penny Wong, has called on the Coalition government to release the full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement before it is signed by Australia, in order to assure that the government isn't signing away the country's rights in areas including copyright."

Also http://www.pennywong.com.au/opinion-pieces/tpp-must-not-trade-away-australias-national-interest/

While I'm happy to see the opposition bring this up, they kept draft agreements under strict secrecy during their term in government. I have serious doubts they'll do anything but rubber stamp whatever the eventual agreement is, regardless of the potential ramifications.

Apprently the text of the agreement on intellectual property hasn't been changed since the Liberal National party took government, so why now is Labor suddenly concerned?
Click to expand...

Cheap politicisation of the debate.

But a good outcome nonetheless.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DivideandMultiply said:
The Greens cop a lot of hate, but Ludlum especially has really done a solid on this.
Click to expand...

100% spot on. Hope he is comfortably re-elected. Am thinking it's a pretty good chance, he's had a fair bit of media recently which helps.
 
http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/akfta/fact-sheet-key-outcomes.html
The FTA includes an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. The Government has ensured the inclusion of appropriate carve-outs and safeguards in important areas such as public welfare, health and the environment. This will provide new protections for Australian investors in Korea as well as Korean investors in Australia, promoting investor confidence and certainty in both countries.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/south-koreans-free-to-sue-thanks-to-new-free-trade-agreement-20131206-2yug1.html
Important to remember that it's not just the TPP that poses these threats, but every "free trade" agreement the federal government elects to sign. I don't know the exact details pertaining to these "carve-outs and safeguards", but I suspect it's the route we are seeking to go down when it comes to the TPP - to have an ISDS clause, but to qualify it somehow.

I'd say this only makes it more important that the documents are released to the public, so that we can all be fully aware of what has been safeguarded and what hasn't. Limited it may be, but it's still a significant shift of sovereignty away from the state and into the hands of unelected corporations.
 
Considering the NSA record my cellphone 'check ins' and know exactly where its been(even though I aint American or live in America). What happens if I get accused of something I did not do and was not at the scene but have no alibi, will they turn over this information upon my request so I can prove my innocence? Will a court instruct them, if i ask that of the court?
 
DivideandMultiply said:
This is mind blowing I can't believe I missed it. If anything, this provides a powerful argument as to why we as Australian citizens should absolutely and unequivocally reject the TPP.
Click to expand...


It's not uncommon for FTAs to be kept secret until signed, sealed and delivered. And the TPP is being regarded as a FTA, by the US and Aus at least.

The problem is that it's not really about Free Trade, or at least if part of it is, much of the rest is not.
 
samFFC said:
It's not uncommon for FTAs to be kept secret until signed, sealed and delivered. And the TPP is being regarded as a FTA, by the US and Aus at least.

The problem is that it's not really about Free Trade, or at least if part of it is, much of the rest is not.
Click to expand...
This is the point, also, varying levels of secrecy. None have ever been this tightly monitored, to the point they refuse upper house briefings, or even full disclosure within the ranks of the ruling lower house party.

I am concerned it may be construed as hyperbole, but we are quite literally being betrayed by our own elected officials.

You are right, calling this a FTA would be a misnomer, it is more a wishlist that guarantees the supremacy of American corporate interest via selective regulation, draconian law enforcement and surveillance demands, as well as partial surrender of our sovereignty. Consumers lose out. Academics lose out. Many Australian businesses will lose out. The sick and infirm. Tech industries, Australian farmers and perhaps even our very own lawmakers. It really is that bad, based on the leaked documents.

Not only do I fear the terms that will be agreed to, considering how badly we have been shafted before by the Americans, likewise how NAFTA benefited no one in NA apart from a small cabal of corporate interest, but I am also wary of the impending News. empowered spin that will be thrust on us as Abbott champions himself the prime mover in Australia's "greatest" ever free trade agreement.
 
DivideandMultiply said:
This is the point, also, varying levels of secrecy. None have ever been this tightly monitored, to the point they refuse upper house briefings, or even full disclosure within the ranks of the ruling lower house party.

I am concerned it may be construed as hyperbole, but we are quite literally being betrayed by our own elected officials.

You are right, calling this a FTA would be a misnomer, it is more a wishlist that guarantees the supremacy of American corporate interest via selective regulation, draconian law enforcement and surveillance demands, as well as partial surrender of our sovereignty. Consumers lose out. Academics lose out. Many Australian businesses will lose out. The sick and infirm. Tech industries, Australian farmers and perhaps even our very own lawmakers. It really is that bad, based on the leaked documents.

Not only do I fear the terms that will be agreed to, considering how badly we have been shafted before by the Americans, likewise how NAFTA benefited no one in NA apart from a small cabal of corporate interest, but I am also wary of the impending News. empowered spin that will be thrust on us as Abbott champions himself the prime mover in Australia's "greatest" ever free trade agreement.
Click to expand...


All sickening, and all accurate.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Is it any wonder the Abbott government is refusing to provide a copy of any FTA with the US to the parliament before it is signed if the current suing of the Costa Rica government by a Canadian mining company due their refusal to allow the mining company to mine a rainforest is anything to go by;

http://globalnews.ca/news/883756/ca...any-suing-costa-rica-for-more-than-1-billion/


LA TIGRA, Costa Rica – A billion-dollar showdown is looming in Central America this week as a Calgary-based mining company announced it will sue the country of Costa Rica, infuriating residents who say their sovereignty is being taken away. Infinito Gold was hoping to operate an open-pit gold mine in the Crucitas region of Costa Rica’s north. On its website, the company says it “…completed all the environmental, social and technical studies and obtained all approvals required under Costa Rican law to develop and operate the Las Crucitas Project.” But the project was held up in court, and after irregularities were found in the approval process the mine’s approval was declared illegal.
In 2011, Costa Rica banned all open-pit metal mining.

“It took a lot of effort,” says Otto Mendez, who fought against the mining project. “It took a lot of people and a lot of money.” But now, Infinito Gold says it will take the country of Costa Rica to international arbitration. In a press release, the company said it had “served notice” to Costa Rica in April 2013, and after the country did not respond, its subsidiary announced a massive lawsuit is “imminent,” the largest in Costa Rica’s history. The company believes the country is violating its trade agreements with Canada. Yokebec Soto, spokesperson for Infinito Gold’s subsidiary in Costa Rica, told Global News by email the company has already invested $92 million in the project and if the project does not proceed, could lose $1 billion in profits.

Some Costa Ricans are reacting in anger. “It is an insult to the intelligence of our people,” says lawyer Edgardo Araya, who also fought against the project. The suit is also inciting anger in Canada. “I think it’s reprehensible,” says Jamie Kneen with MiningWatch Canada. “I think it is irresponsible and it is giving the Canadian mining industry a bad name.” But international arbitration expert Gus Van Harten says Infinito Gold may have a case. He says through international trade agreements signed between countries, international arbitrators have the power to override court and government decisions of sovereign countries. “So on the one hand, in a way, it’s the Costa Rican government’s fault,” says the associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He also says the international arbitration system is tainted, and that arbitrators, who are given immense power to settle disputes, aren’t proper judges.

Some can actually double as lawyers at the same time they are arbitrators, even if they are arguing similar cases. Van Harten says this is a “well-known conflict of interest.” “The point is the people making the decision are the wrong people,” he says. “And whatever decision they make, it will lack integrity as a result.” In Costa Rica, the threat of losing a billion dollars to a Canadian company has some concerned. “Is it worrying, yes it’s worrying,” says Alfredo Arias who lives near the proposed mining site. “I feel awful, I don’t think that’s fair.” Infinito Gold did not respond to numerous requests for comment.
Click to expand...
 
Surely it should not be possible for the legislature and the executive to over-ride their own judiciary? If they are able to set up their own arbiters, which will then be granted a power greater than that of the courts which they themselves should be subject to, what is there that could possibly stop them from creating a tribunal which let it do whatever they wanted? It just doesn't make sense as the framework for a judicial structure in the slightest. Either we have a judiciary which has certain powers to keep the legislature/executive in check (and that would seem to be the case in most of our dealings currently), or the legislature/executive has the power, via agreements with other nations, to over-ride the system which exists to keep it in check. Surely the former makes sense and the latter does not...? But then, who's going to declare our agreement invalid if such a declaration can be over-ridden; what process is there by which such an obviously unreasonable notion could be prevented from becoming actuality?
 
The Passenger said:
It's hard to get this across to people.

I've got to admit I dont understand the whole deal fully nor the full implications but what I do know I don't like.

Here is a couple of pages on facebook that might be of interest

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-the-TPPA-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Agreement/171742532857103

https://www.facebook.com/groups/STOPTPPAustralia/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/626936260701050/
Click to expand...


Thanks!

This one too: https://www.facebook.com/australiansagainsttpp?fref=ts
 
samFFC said:
Thanks!

This one too: https://www.facebook.com/australiansagainsttpp?fref=ts
Click to expand...

I'm not usually big into the old "internet awareness" thing because it's usually a case of people being aware of something when action is what is needed.

But in this case it actually is awareness that is first needed, and there's not really much action anyone can do aside from putting pressure on our politicians to let it go.
 
The Passenger said:
I'm not usually big into the old "internet awareness" thing because it's usually a case of people being aware of something when action is what is needed.

But in this case it actually is awareness that is first needed, and there's not really much action anyone can do aside from putting pressure on our politicians to let it go.
Click to expand...

Spot on. As you say, it is so so complicated, so having places where you can access some expert opinion and analysis is essential.
 
I know people didn't need more of a reason to be concerned about the TPP but:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...onment-will-pay-for-free-trade/5192156?pfm=ms
Under the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, Australia could be forced to pay foreign corporations not to dig up or destroy its coastline or native forests, writes Tom Warne-Smith.

What would you do if an international company decided to stick a toxic waste dump next to your house? Lodging an objection with your council is a good start - but what if the company could claim millions of dollars in damages if the council said no?
That's exactly what happened in Mexico when the municipality of Guadalcazar refused to issue a permit to build a waste dump because of the impact on the 800 surrounding residents and $16.6 million in 'compensation' was awarded to the dump's US owners.
Get ready, because the laws that let this happen are coming to Australia too.quote] Under the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, Australia could be forced to pay foreign corporations not to dig up or destroy its coastline or native forests, writes Tom Warne-Smith.

What would you do if an international company decided to stick a toxic waste dump next to your house? Lodging an objection with your council is a good start - but what if the company could claim millions of dollars in damages if the council said no?
That's exactly what happened in Mexico when the municipality of Guadalcazar refused to issue a permit to build a waste dump because of the impact on the 800 surrounding residents and $16.6 million in 'compensation' was awarded to the dump's US owners.
Get ready, because the laws that let this happen are coming to Australia too.
Click to expand...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...onment-will-pay-for-free-trade/5192156?pfm=ms
 
Seems our issues with these awful clauses haven't gone unnoticed internationally... trouble is, no-one in power down here seems to realise or care what they might be signing up for.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...ging-feud-disrupts-eu-us-trade-treaty/5189866

Australia's plain packaging stoush with the tobacco industry has created policy ripples in some unexpected places, as members of the European Parliament use the Australian stand-off to argue against a free trade agreement with the United States.

The decision by tobacco giant Philip Morris to take legal action against the Australian government has caught the attention of the European Parliament, which is using the legal wrangle to pour cold water on a trade deal currently under negotiation between the EU and the United States.

Many in Europe are concerned that once the deal is reached, legitimate health and social policies could then attract legal action taken on the part of aggrieved corporations, and opponents are using Australia's clash with Philip Morris as an example of how badly things can go wrong.
Click to expand...
 
hcd199 said:
Seems our issues with these awful clauses haven't gone unnoticed internationally... trouble is, no-one in power down here seems to realise or care what they might be signing up for.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...ging-feud-disrupts-eu-us-trade-treaty/5189866
Click to expand...
Yeah, the EU parliament is looking at this as a very real cause for concern. We don't even have an ISDS provision in operation and the plain packaging kerfuffle has still been awkward.

I imagine it is a very mild sign of things to come, yet our government couldn't care less, in fact are rushing to agree to the TPP, yet a massive body like the EU on the other side of the globe has taken serious notice.

More and more I think, free trade agreements are being used as a trojan horse to supplant the democratic rights of citizens with greater corporate rights and powers.

Legislation for ISDS provisions would never get through both houses of parliament, however trade agreements can be signed off on by the executive without oversight or public consultation. A deep flaw in our system. Another method is tacking on almost Orwellian or deeply disadvantageous provisions, to otherwise important bills, that are guaranteed passage through both houses.

Much like the agreement recently signed with the US, that was supposed to cover transfer, sale and collaboration of defence technologies, requiring DSTO certification and oversight, otherwise parties would face massive penalties including up to 10 years in prison and $400,000+ fines for individuals. However, when defence got a hold of it and in consultation with the US state department, the wording was broadened to cover many or most scientific research. The universities went apeshit, heavily lobbied government to include an amendment which allowed academic collaboration, exempted publication of research and purchase/use of educational materials. It was then dumped at the last moment and the legislation was rammed through, without a peep in the media. Only Crikey, The Conversation and SMH had an article or so on the subject each.

So now on the books we have a law that gives the DSTO discretionary powers to demand any and all research data, from anything from quantum computing research, to biotech stuff. On top of that, if you collaborate, access educational materials, publish research or even discuss relevant technologies or your research with an individual outside this country via internet, phone etc. without DSTO certification/permits for the project, you are liable to face extraordinary criminal penalties. Worst of all, a whole host of recent partners have accused the DSTO both privately and in one case very publicly of wholesale IP theft. Allegedly, they have been tendering work, then taking the IP, dumping their Australian partners and selling it, or using the IP gained for profit with their international business partners. If true can you imagine the potential for abuse, these seemingly completely unworkable powers, which alone could have a devastating impact on Australian research and innovation, could provide defence.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/12/02/revealed-the-government-agency-stealing-ideas-from-businesses/
At least five businesses have alleged senior officers in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation have plagiarised their intellectual property for their own research and then passed it on to business partners to develop a rival product. They also allege there is a “rogue element within the agency” and a “culture of circling the wagons when confronted with allegations against them”.
Click to expand...
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/12/02/revealed-the-government-agency-stealing-ideas-from-businesses/

http://sydney.edu.au/research_support/government/defence-trade.shtml

Interesting comment here, from before the bill was passed:
http://www.nteu.org.au/article/Impact-of-the-Defence-Trade-Controls-Bill-on-academic-freedom-13461
This outrageous Bill will (according to UA) make it an offence (up to 10 years in prison) for a university (and hence any citizen) to supply information, assistance or training to non-Australians in relation to thousands of (currently publicly unavailable?) goods listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List (DGSL) that comprises 353 pages, listing thousands of goods. The US-beholden Labor Government in this one move is potentially wrecking Australian universities, especially in relation to educating over 240,000 overseas students annually in a shrinking "education export industry" now worth $16 billion annually. Such students simply won’t spend big money to be lied to and malinformed by Government-intimidated and censored academics.

The most “dangerous goods” one supposes relate to IT and electronics (goodbye to world-leading computer research in Australia), microbiology (goodbye to medical, biotechnology and microbiological research in Australia ) and to potentially toxic synthetic and naturally occurring chemicals and their precursors (goodbye to chemical, pharmaceutical and pharmacological research in Australia). This is national scientific and intellectual suicide - indeed a massive attack on the science-based security of Australians by scientifically-illiterate politicians. It is conceivable that the list of many books to be banned would include my own huge 860 page pharmacological text "The Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds.
Click to expand...
http://www.nteu.org.au/article/Impact-of-the-Defence-Trade-Controls-Bill-on-academic-freedom-13461

http://theconversation.com/science-...of-australias-new-export-control-regime-10127
Unfortunately, avoiding prison will require us to make exactly this kind of determination all the time, because as scientists we depend on communication about our work. Scientists collaborate and discuss experiments with peers abroad, email data using servers located offshore, and publish scientific findings in international journals. In nearly all cases – more than 90% of the time at Sydney – these scientists are conducting basic or applied research in the public interest, having no relation to weapons or defence, and posing no reasonable risk to national security.
The practical implications are almost unbelievable. Legal advice suggests that effectively every academic researcher expecting to engage in some form of intangible transfer must first review the entirety of the DSGL prior to purchasing any piece of equipment.
Click to expand...
http://theconversation.com/science-...of-australias-new-export-control-regime-10127

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ics-and-stifle-innovation-20121009-27b4n.html

Apologies for the wall of text, but this is hell in a hand basket stuff. Stuff like the Defence Trade Controls bill, or the TPP honestly seems like the precursor for corporate takeover, or at least subverting of sovereign power and the rights of citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Carringbush2010
Australia, a growing geopolitical lap dog and not just in the Indo Pacific.
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Zidane98
Zidane98
sherb
Launceston Newspaper Gets Caught Publishing Letter About Non-Existent Transgender Incident
Replies
7
Views
807
schneebly111
S

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top