WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.800 Welcome, everybody. It's great to see another wonderful crowd here at these wonderful venues here at the Festival of Ideas. 2 00:00:07.020 --> 00:00:13.660 My name is John Spear. I'm the Executive Director of the Australian Institute for Social Research at the University of Adelaide. 3 00:00:14.180 --> 00:00:20.200 And it's my great pleasure to be chairing this session with Dr Patricia Rannell. 4 00:00:21.860 --> 00:00:28.300 On the theme of trade agreements, human rights and democracy, should we trade away social policies? 5 00:00:28.300 --> 00:00:36.160 To some, the free trade ideal is a noble pursuit offering prosperity to all nations that pursue it. 6 00:00:36.240 --> 00:00:47.920 For others, it obscures the harsh reality that trade negotiation is a grubby process of political trade-offs forged between political elites and large corporate interests. 7 00:00:48.500 --> 00:00:58.280 Trade analyst John Maddely has observed that just 500 of the world's largest transnational corporations control 70% of the world's trade. 8 00:00:58.300 --> 00:01:06.120 Just 6 transnational corporations control around 85% of world trade in grain. 9 00:01:06.580 --> 00:01:12.500 Just 8 transnational corporations account for around 60% of world coffee sales. 10 00:01:12.940 --> 00:01:18.860 And around about 7 corporations account for 83% of world trade in cocoa. 11 00:01:20.160 --> 00:01:24.240 3 corporations account for 80% of trade in bananas. 12 00:01:28.300 --> 00:01:55.540 4 corporations are able to control tax 13 00:01:55.540 --> 00:02:00.320 that mechanisms such as tariffs, quotas and subsidies insulate domestic industry from 14 00:02:00.320 --> 00:02:07.520 competitive pressures, fuelling inefficiencies. Government assistance to industry is seen to 15 00:02:07.520 --> 00:02:12.100 penalise consumers by denying them access to cheaper imported goods and services. 16 00:02:12.600 --> 00:02:16.960 Critics of free trade point out that advanced industrial economies like the US and Australia 17 00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:22.400 owe much of their early industrial development to tariff protection and other forms of industry 18 00:02:22.400 --> 00:02:27.480 assistance. They argue that it's difficult to envisage how any nation might achieve a level 19 00:02:27.480 --> 00:02:32.160 of industrial success and diversification without some level of industry protection. 20 00:02:32.680 --> 00:02:37.360 They also highlight the hypocrisy of industrialised countries like the US and Australia 21 00:02:37.360 --> 00:02:43.440 that have developed mature industries behind tariffs and quotas and now expect that less 22 00:02:43.440 --> 00:02:52.260 industrialised countries do otherwise. In his book Free Trade, Graham Dunkley states that those who 23 00:02:52.260 --> 00:02:52.380 claim to be free trade are not free, they are free. They are free, they are free, they are free. 24 00:02:52.380 --> 00:02:52.820 They are free, they are free, they are free. They are free, they are free. They are free, they are free. 25 00:02:52.820 --> 00:02:56.760 There is no alternative to free market economies, free trade and globalisation 26 00:02:57.580 --> 00:03:04.440 lack both imagination and knowledge, for alternative perspectives and proposals abound. 27 00:03:05.100 --> 00:03:10.420 Dr Patricia Randall has been generating alternative perspectives and approaches for over a decade 28 00:03:10.420 --> 00:03:16.420 and is a tireless fair trade campaigner. Patricia manages research and policy at the Public Interest 29 00:03:16.420 --> 00:03:22.220 Advocacy Centre in Sydney. She is the National Convener of the Australian Fair Trade and 30 00:03:22.220 --> 00:03:26.900 Investment Network, a network of 90 community organisations which conducts public education 31 00:03:27.500 --> 00:03:33.140 and advocacy on the impact of trade agreements on human rights. Patricia was formerly a Senior 32 00:03:33.140 --> 00:03:37.700 Research Fellow at the University of New South Wales. Her doctoral thesis in international 33 00:03:37.700 --> 00:03:43.980 relations was a comparative study of global and regional international trade agreements and their 34 00:03:43.980 --> 00:03:52.160 impacts on human rights. She holds a Master's Degree in Politics and Public Policy and was co-editor of 35 00:03:52.220 --> 00:03:57.040 the book, Stopping the Juggernaut, Public Interest versus the Multilateral Agreement on Investment 36 00:03:57.740 --> 00:04:02.880 and the author of numerous journal articles, book chapters and publications and is a regular guest 37 00:04:02.880 --> 00:04:08.620 at conferences and events like this, talking about globalisation, governance and the impact 38 00:04:08.620 --> 00:04:16.040 of free trade agreements. Many proponents of free trade seem to de-link the trade debate from 39 00:04:16.040 --> 00:04:21.800 human rights and wider social and political concerns. Patricia Randall will help us 40 00:04:22.220 --> 00:04:25.820 understand why we should not. Please welcome Dr Patricia Randall. 41 00:04:32.340 --> 00:04:38.780 Thanks very much for that introduction. If any of you were at the session this morning on 42 00:04:38.780 --> 00:04:45.320 international institutions, there I spoke about the ways in which trade agreements have been 43 00:04:45.320 --> 00:04:51.860 strengthened since the formation of the World Trade Organisation in 1994. At this session, 44 00:04:51.860 --> 00:04:58.100 I want to talk about bilateral trade agreements and in particular using the US-Australia Free Trade 45 00:04:58.100 --> 00:05:05.260 Agreement as a case study. And I think that this case study also illustrates the ways in which 46 00:05:05.780 --> 00:05:14.180 trade agreements have been strengthened since the early 90s. Firstly, expanding in scope from 47 00:05:14.180 --> 00:05:21.620 dealing with just reductions on tariffs or taxes on imports into areas like 48 00:05:21.860 --> 00:05:29.860 health, environment, all kinds of social policies. And secondly, through the development of dispute 49 00:05:29.860 --> 00:05:37.220 processes in trade agreements, they now allow governments to challenge the laws and policies 50 00:05:37.220 --> 00:05:44.080 of other governments under the rules of trade, backed by trade sanctions. And what these tribunals 51 00:05:44.080 --> 00:05:49.820 do, whether it's a multilateral or a bilateral agreement, is judge social policies under the 52 00:05:49.820 --> 00:05:51.280 rules of trade law. 53 00:05:51.860 --> 00:06:01.480 So what we're having is a system of market relations imposed in social policy areas. 54 00:06:04.580 --> 00:06:10.740 So I want to talk about the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, its impact on social policies, 55 00:06:11.660 --> 00:06:18.600 why this promotes such a strong community campaign and what the campaign achieved, 56 00:06:18.600 --> 00:06:24.240 and consider proposals for better trade frameworks in the future. 57 00:06:25.500 --> 00:06:32.340 Now, if we look at bilateral free trade agreements, that is agreements just between two countries, 58 00:06:32.720 --> 00:06:40.180 what their intention is is to remove all trade barriers at a faster pace than multilateral negotiations 59 00:06:40.720 --> 00:06:45.020 through the World Trade Organisation or regional trade agreements. 60 00:06:45.560 --> 00:06:48.580 Now, even many conventional trade agreements, 61 00:06:48.600 --> 00:06:54.480 economists are critical of bilateral agreements because what they do is give preferential agreement 62 00:06:54.480 --> 00:07:01.120 to the two trade partners, increasing trade between them, but often reducing trade with other countries. 63 00:07:01.480 --> 00:07:08.580 So that if, under the rhetoric of trade, if trade is about expanding global welfare, 64 00:07:10.200 --> 00:07:16.260 most trade economists admit that bilateral trade agreements don't necessarily do this. 65 00:07:16.460 --> 00:07:18.480 They also require complex... 66 00:07:18.600 --> 00:07:24.260 they require complex what are called rules of origin to ensure that the products that get this preferential treatment, 67 00:07:24.480 --> 00:07:32.500 that is, say, zero tariff treatment rather than the reduced level of tariffs or the general level of tariffs 68 00:07:32.500 --> 00:07:35.040 that exists in the World Trade Organisation, 69 00:07:35.380 --> 00:07:43.820 you have to ensure that the products that get this preferential treatment are actually produced by the two bilateral partners 70 00:07:43.820 --> 00:07:45.840 and they're not sneaking in products from elsewhere. 71 00:07:46.280 --> 00:07:48.580 So you get... 72 00:07:48.580 --> 00:07:52.380 you get these very complex rules of origin which themselves can become barriers to trade. 73 00:07:52.800 --> 00:07:58.640 And the WTO itself has actually criticised these aspects of bilateral agreements. 74 00:07:58.940 --> 00:08:05.040 And generally speaking, the poorest developing countries are excluded from bilateral agreements. 75 00:08:05.280 --> 00:08:09.360 So the bilateral trade agreements tend to be between the wealthier countries or, 76 00:08:09.480 --> 00:08:14.480 if developing countries are involved, they're the ones that are on the path to development rather than the poorest. 77 00:08:15.320 --> 00:08:18.260 So bilateral negotiations favour the powerful. 78 00:08:18.440 --> 00:08:18.560 So bilateral negotiations favour the powerful. 79 00:08:18.560 --> 00:08:22.720 And the other aspect of them is that if there's only two partners, 80 00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:27.720 then the most powerful one has the most negotiating strength. 81 00:08:29.880 --> 00:08:35.640 So that the US, for example, when it hasn't been able to get exactly what it wanted in the World Trade Organisation, 82 00:08:35.880 --> 00:08:46.680 has used its bargaining strength in bilateral trade agreements to assert things like greater protection of intellectual property rights for pharmaceutical companies. 83 00:08:47.140 --> 00:08:48.540 And even to clause in the WTO's claim that the US is not able to get exactly what it wanted in the World Trade Organisation. 84 00:09:01.320 --> 00:09:16.680 So these are often 85 00:09:16.680 --> 00:09:21.040 was supposed to be significantly improved access to US agricultural markets. 86 00:09:21.360 --> 00:09:23.900 Our farmers were meant to get access to, you know, 87 00:09:23.900 --> 00:09:27.280 sell more wheat and meat and so on in the US. 88 00:09:28.340 --> 00:09:31.020 But in the end, this didn't prove to be the case. 89 00:09:31.380 --> 00:09:33.680 The sugar market was completely excluded 90 00:09:33.680 --> 00:09:37.980 and access to other key agricultural markets will take 12 to 18 years. 91 00:09:38.400 --> 00:09:41.680 And, in fact, this was predictable at the beginning of the negotiations 92 00:09:41.680 --> 00:09:46.540 because the US farm lobby is extremely strong 93 00:09:46.540 --> 00:09:50.900 and they didn't want to make further concessions to Australia. 94 00:09:52.140 --> 00:09:55.840 In fact, the gains for Australia were so low on agriculture 95 00:09:55.840 --> 00:09:59.780 that the actual negotiators recommended that the agreement not proceed, 96 00:09:59.940 --> 00:10:03.260 but they were overruled by the Trade Minister and the Prime Minister. 97 00:10:05.100 --> 00:10:09.460 So the agreement didn't... 98 00:10:09.460 --> 00:10:11.440 We didn't get many gains on agriculture. 99 00:10:11.680 --> 00:10:16.580 But the Prime Minister was politically determined to have the agreement 100 00:10:16.580 --> 00:10:20.560 and that was partly because of the security arrangements between the two countries. 101 00:10:20.880 --> 00:10:27.540 And both countries said that it was about integrating the Australian economy 102 00:10:27.540 --> 00:10:29.680 into the US economy in the long term 103 00:10:29.680 --> 00:10:32.860 and that this would somehow deliver benefits in the long term. 104 00:10:33.340 --> 00:10:38.140 But what it does mean is significant changes to Australian law and policy 105 00:10:38.140 --> 00:10:41.660 on access to medicines, regulation of essential goods, 106 00:10:41.680 --> 00:10:43.560 essential services and cultural policy. 107 00:10:44.480 --> 00:10:48.420 There is also a disputes process that does enable the US government 108 00:10:48.420 --> 00:10:52.600 to challenge Australian law or policy if they're inconsistent with the agreement. 109 00:10:54.180 --> 00:10:58.860 The community campaign against the agreement did change public opinion. 110 00:10:59.140 --> 00:11:01.120 Most people were opposed to the agreement. 111 00:11:02.040 --> 00:11:05.420 And it did also have some influence on the negotiations 112 00:11:05.420 --> 00:11:08.240 and prevented the US from getting all it wanted. 113 00:11:08.480 --> 00:11:10.460 So the agreement could have been worse. 114 00:11:11.360 --> 00:11:11.480 But... 115 00:11:11.680 --> 00:11:14.820 The campaign didn't succeed in actually stopping the agreement. 116 00:11:15.800 --> 00:11:18.660 And I'll talk about that in a moment. 117 00:11:19.980 --> 00:11:23.480 I want to now discuss the specific impacts of the agreement 118 00:11:23.480 --> 00:11:24.980 and the campaign in more detail 119 00:11:24.980 --> 00:11:28.240 so that we can see exactly how these trade agreements 120 00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:31.200 do impact on social policies and human rights. 121 00:11:32.320 --> 00:11:35.500 First of all, the changes to medicines policies. 122 00:11:36.300 --> 00:11:41.660 From the beginning, it was very clear that the pharmaceutical lobby groups 123 00:11:41.680 --> 00:11:50.160 in the US and the US government identified Australia's pharmaceutical benefit scheme, 124 00:11:50.320 --> 00:11:53.080 the PBS, as a target in the negotiations. 125 00:11:53.680 --> 00:11:58.920 And they did this because basically the pharmaceutical companies argued 126 00:11:58.920 --> 00:12:02.280 that the price of medicines was too low in Australia. 127 00:12:02.440 --> 00:12:06.720 That they were not getting a sufficiently high enough price for their medicines. 128 00:12:07.220 --> 00:12:11.600 Now, people probably know in general how the PBS, 129 00:12:11.600 --> 00:12:12.120 the Australian PBS works. 130 00:12:12.300 --> 00:12:14.360 So I won't go into a lot of detail about it. 131 00:12:14.420 --> 00:12:17.900 But basically, the Australian government buys medicines 132 00:12:17.900 --> 00:12:20.940 at low wholesale prices from companies. 133 00:12:21.400 --> 00:12:27.260 And then makes them available, again, at a further subsidised price to us, the public. 134 00:12:27.520 --> 00:12:30.920 That's why you can get medicines for $20 to $30 if you're working 135 00:12:30.920 --> 00:12:33.040 or $3 to $5 if you're a pensioner. 136 00:12:33.520 --> 00:12:36.500 And that means that medicines are basically affordable here. 137 00:12:36.740 --> 00:12:40.120 In the US, they don't have this system and the price of ordinary medicines, 138 00:12:40.360 --> 00:12:41.580 prescription medicines, I'm sure, are not as high as the US. 139 00:12:41.580 --> 00:12:44.180 I'm talking about things that you get from the doctor, 140 00:12:44.320 --> 00:12:47.580 is three to ten times higher than it is in Australia. 141 00:12:47.920 --> 00:12:51.640 And a lot of people simply cannot afford medicines in the US. 142 00:12:52.340 --> 00:12:56.820 Now, the way that the government in Australia decides those prices 143 00:12:56.820 --> 00:12:58.660 is by a system called reference pricing. 144 00:12:58.960 --> 00:13:05.040 That is, they compare the price of new medicines that still have patents on them, 145 00:13:05.100 --> 00:13:07.780 which are very highly priced, with similar medicines, 146 00:13:07.820 --> 00:13:11.320 which have the same medical effects, but the way the patents have expired. 147 00:13:11.580 --> 00:13:12.800 And they're a much lower price. 148 00:13:13.000 --> 00:13:15.720 And then they choose the price that they're going to pay, 149 00:13:16.420 --> 00:13:20.920 which is lower than the patent high price. 150 00:13:23.780 --> 00:13:29.060 So, as I said, the pharmaceutical companies feel that this price control system 151 00:13:29.580 --> 00:13:35.200 results in not enough return for them. 152 00:13:35.400 --> 00:13:39.740 And they argued in trade terms that this system prevents them 153 00:13:39.740 --> 00:13:41.560 from enjoying the full benefits of the new medicines. 154 00:13:41.580 --> 00:13:41.740 And they argued that this is a very high price, 155 00:13:41.740 --> 00:13:43.020 and that they're violating their intellectual property rights. 156 00:13:43.240 --> 00:13:45.500 That's the trade argument they use, 157 00:13:45.600 --> 00:13:48.160 that we're violating their intellectual property rights 158 00:13:48.160 --> 00:13:50.160 by having affordable medicines. 159 00:13:51.580 --> 00:13:56.660 Now, the actual agreement didn't destroy the PBS, 160 00:13:56.980 --> 00:13:59.360 but it made some little inroads into it, 161 00:13:59.440 --> 00:14:02.780 which will result in higher prices over time. 162 00:14:03.240 --> 00:14:08.800 The first one was, it allowed drug companies to seek reviews 163 00:14:08.800 --> 00:14:11.460 of the decisions of the pharmaceutical benefit. 164 00:14:11.580 --> 00:14:12.580 And this was done by the Public Benefits Advisory Committee. 165 00:14:12.900 --> 00:14:16.560 And this will increase the pressure for more highly priced drugs 166 00:14:16.560 --> 00:14:22.260 to be listed as eligible for the subsidies, 167 00:14:22.360 --> 00:14:24.060 and therefore bought by the government. 168 00:14:25.360 --> 00:14:29.140 Secondly, the agreement sets up a joint medicines working group. 169 00:14:29.240 --> 00:14:31.040 And this is one of the most insidious things, 170 00:14:31.220 --> 00:14:36.140 because that working group has as its terms of reference 171 00:14:36.140 --> 00:14:37.700 the commercial principles, 172 00:14:37.700 --> 00:14:40.960 which include the need to recognise the value 173 00:14:40.960 --> 00:14:43.660 of innovative pharmaceutical products, 174 00:14:43.700 --> 00:14:46.460 and the need to fully respect the intellectual property rights 175 00:14:46.460 --> 00:14:47.820 of drug companies. 176 00:14:48.320 --> 00:14:51.420 And it doesn't include the Australian principle 177 00:14:51.420 --> 00:14:55.800 of making sure that medicines are affordable to all. 178 00:14:59.940 --> 00:15:03.460 So this joint medicines working party, 179 00:15:03.520 --> 00:15:05.380 it's not clear exactly how it's going to work, 180 00:15:05.440 --> 00:15:07.600 but it is going to have a say in our future. 181 00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:08.460 And it's going to have a say in our future medicines policy. 182 00:15:08.700 --> 00:15:10.820 So I think this is the Trojan horse 183 00:15:10.820 --> 00:15:14.640 that is going to erode some of the principles of the PBS. 184 00:15:15.600 --> 00:15:17.800 And thirdly, the agreement did make changes 185 00:15:17.800 --> 00:15:20.180 to our actual intellectual property laws. 186 00:15:20.520 --> 00:15:24.520 And the thrust of those changes is that it will now be easier 187 00:15:24.520 --> 00:15:27.420 for existing patent holders on medicines 188 00:15:27.420 --> 00:15:31.040 to delay the production of cheaper generic drugs. 189 00:15:31.360 --> 00:15:33.460 And it does this in various ways, 190 00:15:34.420 --> 00:15:37.580 mainly by saying that, 191 00:15:37.600 --> 00:15:40.400 those who are about to produce, 192 00:15:40.520 --> 00:15:42.520 when patents are about to expire, 193 00:15:42.580 --> 00:15:45.380 if you're about to produce a cheaper version of the same drug, 194 00:15:45.520 --> 00:15:47.360 you have to make all sorts of notifications 195 00:15:47.360 --> 00:15:48.840 to the patent holder. 196 00:15:49.140 --> 00:15:53.240 And then they have the option of trying to argue and delay 197 00:15:53.960 --> 00:15:56.080 for an extension of their patent. 198 00:15:58.860 --> 00:16:01.100 After pressure from the community campaign, 199 00:16:01.640 --> 00:16:05.240 the ALP opposition sought to address this issue in part 200 00:16:05.240 --> 00:16:07.380 by putting an amendment in 201 00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:09.740 to the implementing legislation for the agreement. 202 00:16:10.140 --> 00:16:12.340 And that amendment said that 203 00:16:14.880 --> 00:16:18.700 it sought to prevent the patent, 204 00:16:18.900 --> 00:16:23.740 the pharmaceutical companies from using certain kinds of legal tactics 205 00:16:23.740 --> 00:16:28.960 to delay the, to extend patents. 206 00:16:29.320 --> 00:16:32.820 Now, it's very interesting because this was passed through the parliament, 207 00:16:33.160 --> 00:16:34.700 and after it was passed through, 208 00:16:34.700 --> 00:16:38.060 the US government stated its strong objection to that amendment 209 00:16:38.700 --> 00:16:41.120 and said that it reserved the right to challenge it 210 00:16:41.700 --> 00:16:44.340 under the disputes process of the agreement 211 00:16:44.340 --> 00:16:46.360 once the agreement was implemented. 212 00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:51.540 I now want to move on to talk about trade in services 213 00:16:51.540 --> 00:16:55.700 and the impact of the agreement on trade in services. 214 00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:01.140 This bilateral agreement has what's called a negative list 215 00:17:01.700 --> 00:17:03.660 that applies to all trade in services. 216 00:17:03.660 --> 00:17:07.620 And that means that all services are included in the agreement 217 00:17:07.620 --> 00:17:11.560 unless they're specifically reserved as exceptions. 218 00:17:12.180 --> 00:17:14.620 Now, because of community campaigning, 219 00:17:14.740 --> 00:17:17.580 a lot of essential services were listed as exceptions. 220 00:17:18.100 --> 00:17:20.180 And I'll come back to that in a moment. 221 00:17:20.340 --> 00:17:24.800 But basically, if a service is included in the agreement, 222 00:17:25.200 --> 00:17:29.220 it means that that service must be treated as a traded good, 223 00:17:29.460 --> 00:17:33.640 that US companies must have what's called market access, 224 00:17:33.660 --> 00:17:37.360 and national treatment in relation to that service, 225 00:17:37.760 --> 00:17:44.520 and that you can't have unduly burdensome regulation of that service. 226 00:17:44.740 --> 00:17:50.320 And that includes things like for service quality 227 00:17:52.000 --> 00:17:54.460 and provision of services. 228 00:17:54.680 --> 00:17:59.040 There can't be too specific regulation which specifies, for example, 229 00:18:00.020 --> 00:18:02.980 staffing numbers required to deliver that service, 230 00:18:02.980 --> 00:18:08.020 or other things which could be regarded as too prescriptive 231 00:18:08.020 --> 00:18:09.840 or market restrictive. 232 00:18:10.060 --> 00:18:12.720 You also can't specify the number of service providers 233 00:18:12.720 --> 00:18:15.860 that you can have in a certain area, for example. 234 00:18:16.320 --> 00:18:19.500 So when you look at services like health and education, 235 00:18:19.900 --> 00:18:25.780 obviously we wouldn't want to expose them to that kind of trade rule. 236 00:18:26.000 --> 00:18:29.800 And the government did list them as exceptions in the agreement. 237 00:18:30.440 --> 00:18:32.960 But there were three areas that we wanted to look at. 238 00:18:32.980 --> 00:18:34.460 One was that they didn't list it as exceptions, 239 00:18:34.700 --> 00:18:37.240 which we thought they should have listed. 240 00:18:37.500 --> 00:18:42.520 And they were public utilities, which is electricity and water, 241 00:18:42.740 --> 00:18:43.940 and public transport. 242 00:18:44.360 --> 00:18:49.720 So that means that US companies now do have full market access 243 00:18:49.720 --> 00:18:53.980 to those three areas of essential services. 244 00:18:54.260 --> 00:18:58.820 And we can't restrict, for instance, the level of US investment 245 00:18:58.820 --> 00:19:01.600 in any way in those three areas of services. 246 00:19:02.980 --> 00:19:07.340 And that if a US company perceives that regulation, 247 00:19:07.460 --> 00:19:10.120 say in water services, is unduly burdensome, 248 00:19:10.180 --> 00:19:13.020 they can complain about that to a trade tribunal 249 00:19:13.020 --> 00:19:17.500 and the issue will be judged in trade law terms, 250 00:19:17.700 --> 00:19:21.100 not in terms of whether the regulation is for the social, 251 00:19:21.320 --> 00:19:23.120 you know, has a public purpose. 252 00:19:23.540 --> 00:19:28.940 And I would argue that this removal, effective removal of social regulation 253 00:19:28.940 --> 00:19:32.960 from local, national or regional, 254 00:19:32.960 --> 00:19:36.360 or state government control, which is what it's about, 255 00:19:36.540 --> 00:19:38.800 is a significant erosion of democracy 256 00:19:38.800 --> 00:19:42.500 and potentially has very negative effects on human rights, 257 00:19:42.720 --> 00:19:48.020 just like the changes to medicines regulation do. 258 00:19:50.160 --> 00:19:54.060 The third area I want to talk about briefly is audiovisual services. 259 00:19:54.140 --> 00:19:57.140 There was a lot of publicity about this during the negotiations. 260 00:19:57.760 --> 00:20:02.880 Basically, the US, as the world's largest exporter of audiovisual services, 261 00:20:02.960 --> 00:20:06.440 argues consistently, not only in Australia but all around the world, 262 00:20:06.480 --> 00:20:10.560 that governments shouldn't have the right to have Australian 263 00:20:10.560 --> 00:20:14.380 or local content rules in any audiovisual services. 264 00:20:14.840 --> 00:20:18.380 They argue you should have a free market in audiovisual services. 265 00:20:19.920 --> 00:20:25.020 Now, the compromise that was reached, again, after a lot of community campaigning, 266 00:20:25.200 --> 00:20:30.200 was that we were allowed to retain our current levels of Australian content rules 267 00:20:30.200 --> 00:20:32.940 for current audiovisual services. 268 00:20:32.960 --> 00:20:34.120 So, we don't have to have new audiovisual services like film and television. 269 00:20:34.640 --> 00:20:38.600 However, for emerging new forms of audiovisual services, 270 00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:44.720 like pay TV or interactive audiovisual services through the internet, 271 00:20:45.000 --> 00:20:48.200 the levels of Australian content have to be lower, 272 00:20:48.360 --> 00:20:52.660 and for new audiovisual services, which may develop in the future, 273 00:20:52.860 --> 00:20:55.260 there can be no local content rules at all. 274 00:20:55.580 --> 00:20:59.800 Now, this is like saying in 1950 that you can have local content rules for radio, 275 00:20:59.900 --> 00:21:00.740 but not for TV. 276 00:21:00.740 --> 00:21:07.380 So, it really means that we won't be able to control Australian cultural content 277 00:21:07.380 --> 00:21:09.600 in the new media that develop in the future. 278 00:21:09.760 --> 00:21:13.540 And this is another pernicious aspect of this negative list, 279 00:21:13.720 --> 00:21:17.500 because a negative list means that any new service that develops in the future 280 00:21:17.500 --> 00:21:21.880 can't have any restrictive rules on it, 281 00:21:21.940 --> 00:21:25.740 whether it's audiovisual services or, say, water services, 282 00:21:26.340 --> 00:21:29.500 or any form of new service. 283 00:21:32.300 --> 00:21:32.860 OK. 284 00:21:34.060 --> 00:21:36.140 I'm running out of time a bit, 285 00:21:36.180 --> 00:21:39.700 but I just want to briefly mention some of the other things that the agreement did. 286 00:21:40.020 --> 00:21:43.800 In terms of investment rules, again, there was a negative list here, 287 00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:49.880 and public utilities, water and so on, were not excluded, 288 00:21:50.100 --> 00:21:53.320 although things like health and education were. 289 00:21:54.820 --> 00:21:59.540 And basically, what they did in terms of foreign investment controls 290 00:21:59.540 --> 00:22:00.360 was say that, 291 00:22:00.360 --> 00:22:06.260 they lifted the threshold for any review of foreign investment 292 00:22:06.260 --> 00:22:11.320 on the grounds of national interest from $50 million to $800 million. 293 00:22:11.880 --> 00:22:15.600 So, that means about 90% of all US investment in Australia 294 00:22:15.600 --> 00:22:19.660 will no longer be even looked at in terms of whether it affects 295 00:22:20.360 --> 00:22:22.300 the national interest or the public interest. 296 00:22:22.820 --> 00:22:27.060 So, there are some exceptions listed, 297 00:22:27.220 --> 00:22:29.980 and the exceptions include Qantas, 298 00:22:30.900 --> 00:22:32.680 telecommunications, particularly Telstra, 299 00:22:32.780 --> 00:22:33.960 and media ownership. 300 00:22:34.880 --> 00:22:38.940 But that is a significant change in the ability to review 301 00:22:38.940 --> 00:22:43.840 the national interest implications of US investment in Australia. 302 00:22:45.060 --> 00:22:49.380 One victory we did have in the campaign was that the US wanted to have, 303 00:22:49.480 --> 00:22:51.740 as part of that investment chapter, 304 00:22:52.200 --> 00:22:55.480 what's called an investor-state disputes process. 305 00:22:55.600 --> 00:23:00.340 That is, that companies themselves can sue governments for their money, 306 00:23:00.340 --> 00:23:04.000 for damages, if they feel their investments are being harmed, 307 00:23:04.160 --> 00:23:08.380 or by actions which are not consistent with the agreement. 308 00:23:08.860 --> 00:23:12.160 Now, this is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 309 00:23:12.320 --> 00:23:16.820 and it's been part of every other bilateral agreement that the US has had. 310 00:23:17.100 --> 00:23:19.040 Because of community campaigning, 311 00:23:19.120 --> 00:23:21.500 and because of the examples that were used from NAFTA, 312 00:23:21.700 --> 00:23:25.000 where companies had sued the Canadian and Mexican governments, 313 00:23:25.140 --> 00:23:27.100 we managed to keep that out of this agreement. 314 00:23:27.460 --> 00:23:30.020 But there is a nasty little clause that says that, 315 00:23:30.340 --> 00:23:34.840 in the future, the parties may consider having that back in, 316 00:23:34.940 --> 00:23:36.260 but it's not there at the moment. 317 00:23:38.880 --> 00:23:44.740 The last thing I want to mention is changes to laws on food regulation and quarantine. 318 00:23:45.740 --> 00:23:50.280 Again, community campaigning meant that there are no immediate changes. 319 00:23:50.960 --> 00:23:57.140 The changes that the US wanted were to challenge our labelling 320 00:23:57.140 --> 00:24:00.080 of genetically engineered food, which they don't have in the US, 321 00:24:00.340 --> 00:24:04.940 and they're also worried about the regulation of genetically engineered crops, 322 00:24:05.160 --> 00:24:07.040 which occurs at the state government level. 323 00:24:07.520 --> 00:24:10.200 But they did succeed in getting immediate changes, 324 00:24:10.280 --> 00:24:14.580 but there is yet another joint, two sets of joint committees set up, 325 00:24:14.640 --> 00:24:19.260 one on food standards and food labelling, one on quarantine. 326 00:24:20.400 --> 00:24:24.480 Again, they argue that aspects of our quarantine law are barriers to trade. 327 00:24:24.600 --> 00:24:26.940 So again, there are these joint committees set up, 328 00:24:26.980 --> 00:24:30.240 which are going to review Australian policy in the future. 329 00:24:30.340 --> 00:24:33.520 And all of those joint committees will mean more US pressure 330 00:24:34.340 --> 00:24:38.220 to adopt their regulatory frameworks rather than keep our own. 331 00:24:39.680 --> 00:24:42.420 So what did we achieve in this community campaign? 332 00:24:43.540 --> 00:24:47.980 We had the biggest critical debate that we've ever had about a trade agreement. 333 00:24:48.320 --> 00:24:50.740 There were hundreds of community meetings, there were rallies, 334 00:24:50.900 --> 00:24:52.660 there were petitions, there were postcards. 335 00:24:53.920 --> 00:24:58.140 There were two parliamentary inquiries, which had over 700 submissions. 336 00:24:58.580 --> 00:25:00.320 And public opinion polls, which were published in the US, 337 00:25:00.340 --> 00:25:03.660 conducted by Hawker Britain, showed a steady decline in support 338 00:25:03.660 --> 00:25:08.160 for the US Free Trade Agreement, from 65% when the negotiations started 339 00:25:08.160 --> 00:25:12.360 to 35% when the deal was concluded. 340 00:25:13.060 --> 00:25:16.620 And at the beginning of this year, there was another poll by the Lowy Institute, 341 00:25:16.820 --> 00:25:20.880 which showed that only 34% of Australians thought it was a good deal. 342 00:25:21.380 --> 00:25:24.700 So I think that we did win the public opinion battle, 343 00:25:24.960 --> 00:25:28.940 but that wasn't reflected at the parliamentary level, 344 00:25:29.080 --> 00:25:30.240 although the ALP, 345 00:25:30.340 --> 00:25:33.580 the Democrats and the Greens all adopted critical policies 346 00:25:33.580 --> 00:25:37.040 of the US Free Trade Agreement. 347 00:25:37.260 --> 00:25:40.100 In the end, there was a factional battle in the ALP, 348 00:25:40.140 --> 00:25:45.260 and the right defeated the left opposition to the agreement. 349 00:25:45.400 --> 00:25:49.040 But the community campaign forced them to move those amendments on medicines, 350 00:25:49.140 --> 00:25:52.740 and they also moved some amendments about cultural policy, 351 00:25:52.860 --> 00:25:58.120 which safeguarded the existing levels of Australian content. 352 00:25:59.040 --> 00:26:00.200 In Australia, 353 00:26:00.340 --> 00:26:03.860 the whole trade agreement does not get debated by Parliament. 354 00:26:04.080 --> 00:26:05.820 It's only the implementing legislation. 355 00:26:06.380 --> 00:26:10.500 Cabinet actually makes all the decisions about trade agreements. 356 00:26:10.700 --> 00:26:15.640 So to try and get an opposition to actually stop an agreement 357 00:26:15.640 --> 00:26:19.620 through not passing the implementing legislation is very difficult. 358 00:26:19.800 --> 00:26:23.980 So it was a considerable victory to actually get the ALP to even consider 359 00:26:23.980 --> 00:26:26.900 that it mightn't pass the implementing legislation. 360 00:26:27.300 --> 00:26:30.000 But we were hoping that we could, 361 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:31.400 force them not to do it, 362 00:26:31.420 --> 00:26:32.100 but in the end, 363 00:26:32.120 --> 00:26:33.800 they did do it. 364 00:26:36.600 --> 00:26:40.420 We did have a very strong campaign in favour of the agreement, 365 00:26:40.520 --> 00:26:44.000 and I think the fact that public opinion still came out against it 366 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:46.820 when we had certainly the Murdoch Press, 367 00:26:47.040 --> 00:26:51.940 business and full-time paid publicists like Alan Oxley 368 00:26:51.940 --> 00:26:53.460 campaigning for the agreement, 369 00:26:53.580 --> 00:26:56.820 shows that there was a great understanding in the community 370 00:26:56.820 --> 00:26:59.560 about the negative impacts of this agreement. 371 00:27:02.640 --> 00:27:08.360 I just want to say that I think that in terms of what we've learnt from this campaign, 372 00:27:08.660 --> 00:27:12.100 I think there is a much higher awareness now in the community 373 00:27:12.100 --> 00:27:14.120 about the dangers of these agreements. 374 00:27:16.860 --> 00:27:21.720 And there is a growing international campaign about these issues. 375 00:27:21.820 --> 00:27:25.620 We did make international links with US groups during the campaign, 376 00:27:25.880 --> 00:27:29.580 but it wasn't as big an issue in the US as it was here, 377 00:27:29.580 --> 00:27:34.080 simply because it didn't have the same impact on their policies as it did here. 378 00:27:36.780 --> 00:27:39.900 This growing international campaign is demanding 379 00:27:40.580 --> 00:27:44.640 the rejection of exclusive bilateral agreements that favour the powerful. 380 00:27:44.960 --> 00:27:50.160 It is demanding better recognition of the needs of developing countries 381 00:27:50.160 --> 00:27:51.500 in the world trading system. 382 00:27:51.680 --> 00:27:57.880 And above all, it is demanding exclusion of essential services and social policies, 383 00:27:58.000 --> 00:27:59.440 like public health, education, 384 00:27:59.580 --> 00:28:02.820 water and other services from trade agreements. 385 00:28:03.280 --> 00:28:07.320 And that trade agreements shouldn't restrict the ability of governments 386 00:28:07.320 --> 00:28:09.200 to regulate in the public interest. 387 00:28:10.800 --> 00:28:14.520 And we're also demanding a more democratic and accountable process 388 00:28:14.520 --> 00:28:16.080 for trade agreements in Australia. 389 00:28:16.540 --> 00:28:20.740 It shouldn't be a cabinet decision to endorse trade agreements of this kind. 390 00:28:21.040 --> 00:28:25.100 There should be a full parliamentary debate of the whole trade agreement, 391 00:28:25.180 --> 00:28:27.100 and there should in fact be a parliamentary debate 392 00:28:27.100 --> 00:28:32.140 before the decision to actually embark on trade agreements. 393 00:28:32.600 --> 00:28:36.680 And the full social and economic impact of trade agreements 394 00:28:36.680 --> 00:28:38.920 should be considered in that debate. 395 00:28:39.300 --> 00:28:41.400 So they're the kinds of issues we're raising. 396 00:28:42.980 --> 00:28:47.400 I just want to talk briefly about the next campaign, 397 00:28:47.800 --> 00:28:52.960 and that is in relation to the Australia-China free trade agreement, 398 00:28:53.080 --> 00:28:55.160 which is a completely different set of issues. 399 00:28:55.560 --> 00:28:56.700 The Chinese... 400 00:28:57.100 --> 00:29:00.080 The Chinese are not interested in our social policies or our medicines. 401 00:29:00.760 --> 00:29:08.640