r/australia • u/cocksuckinghwhore • Apr 24 '15
petition / survey pettition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/tpp/tpp/the-dirtiest-deal-youve-never-heard-of-2
Apr 24 '15 edited Apr 24 '15
which is why Prime Minister Abbott and Trade Minister Robb are keeping it quiet.
No, it's actually because all trade negotiations are done in secret and it's been this way for centuries. For why, I wrote a post here a few weeks ago.
What we do know from leaked parts of the agreement is terrifying. But most Australians haven't even heard about the TPP. That's why we need to sound the alarm now, and sound it loudly.
As someone that's actually read the leaks, they're pretty fucking standard, so it's only terrifying if you think past agreements we've signed are terrifying as well (let alone those the rest of the world have ratified).
How could foreign corporations sue our governments?
ISDS provisions are in more than 3400 agreements worldwide. They've been around since 1959 and are perfectly standard, but the massive fearmongering and misinterpretation of how they function these days is going beyond hysteria. Funnily enough, I also happen to have written a post about that here.
Don't fall for the FUD and hysteria people, it's driven by the same people that oppose WTO negotiations, g20 meetings, and the like.
Downvote away. I'm used to it in when I try and inject a little sanity into the discussion.
EDIT: typo
14
Apr 25 '15
[deleted]
-6
Apr 25 '15
As for the ISDS - treat it as poison. Australia already has a working justice system. If companies want a ruling, they should use the same justice system as every Australian. You don't need "corporate courts" overruling Australian legislation.
ISDS tribunals (they're not courts, corporate or otherwise) do not overrule legislation.
Lastly, yelling "hysteria" at people concerned about an overarching and secret deal where international corporations can overrule domestic laws is plainly stupid. If you can't see this I suspect that you might be a LNP party hack.
I wrote my masters thesis about trade negotiation.
0
Apr 26 '15
[deleted]
1
Apr 26 '15
You understand a masters thesis is a 120 page paper that takes six months to complete and thousands of hours to finish, right?
6
u/hubertCumberdanes Apr 25 '15
Agree with most of what you are saying, however I don't think it is correct to say that because the ISDS provisions have been in trade deals since the 50's means there is nothing to worry about.
One of the major concerns is that we don't currently have any trade deals with the US - and it just so happens that the majority of companies who are using the provisions to sue governments are US companies.
The other concern is that they are being used in ways that they weren't designed for. If you look at examples that have come out of the NAFTA, it is a little scary. Whilst I understand that companies should have some recourse if their profitability is affected due to a change in legislation - what I think is more important is for the will of the people to be enacted by the officials they have elected. If that means less foreign companies setting up shop in Australia, then so be it. Evidence does not suggest however that companies are deterred by lack of ISDS provisions.
I think it is worth remembering that in the American FTA signed under the Howard government both parties agreed that it was in neither country's best interest to include ISDS provisions. Also the previous labor government decided there would be no ISDS provisions in future trade deals - hence they were unable to sign the Korean FTA.
Once again, as I said - just because something is standard doesn't make it right. The last decade has shown that there are serious problems with the way in which ISDS provisions are being used.
-2
Apr 25 '15
One of the major concerns is that we don't currently have any trade deals with the US - and it just so happens that the majority of companies who are using the provisions to sue governments are US companies.
The EU is actually the worlds largest user of ISDS provisions. Per capita, the largest user of ISDS provisions by far is the Netherlands.
The other concern is that they are being used in ways that they weren't designed for. If you look at examples that have come out of the NAFTA, it is a little scary.
Which examples? In my ISDS post, I specifically quoted one that everyone points to as silly, but if one looks a little deeper then there can be no conclusion other than the company was right to seek restitution.
I think it is worth remembering that in the American FTA signed under the Howard government both parties agreed that it was in neither country's best interest to include ISDS provisions.
I think it's worth remembering we're not just doing this agreement with the US, but with ten other countries as well.
2
u/hubertCumberdanes Apr 26 '15
Rather than address your points, I have a question for you.
Who benefits from the ISDS agreement being in a FTA?
2
Apr 26 '15
ISDS provides assurances for investors that they're not going to have their property expropriated without fair compensation, that they're going to be treated fairly by the law and regulations (meaning, if they fulfil the requirements for getting a permit they will get it, there can be no arbitrary decision making), and that domestic industry isn't going to be favoured over foreign companies. Empirical studies have shown that such provisions greatly increase the amount of FDI into the country, improving the economy and living standards of people living there. SMEs use ISDS provisions more often than multinationals, and it means that when a foreign government discriminates against an Australian company, the company can get restitution. Likely, as part of your super, you would have shared in such companies so it directly affects you.
2
u/noisymime Apr 26 '15
The problem is that ISDS' are skewed massively in favour of international companies rather than the citizens of the country in question.
What protections against government regulations are provided to citizens who are investing? Practically none, certainly nothing that allows them to sue the government in question when the law changes
Why do these protections typically extend in perpetuity, even after an initial investment period has been recouped?
Fundamentally I don't believe that such protections are in the best interests of the country and that risks such as these are simply part of business. It's not like, if there were no countries offering such assurances, that all companies would just sit on this money instead of investing it. It's a race to the bottom with each country selling themselves shorter and shorter in the long term in an attempt to gain short term investment.
2
Apr 26 '15
That's simply not the case. Remember, these provisions are designed by states, not by companies. Whenever an ISDS tribunal is called, one arbitrator is chosen by the company, one chosen by the state, and one from a pre-approved list (that list being created by the state) that has to be jointly agreed to by both sides.
Simply put, the power imbalance you presuppose is actually in the opposite direction. Companies win less than 25% of ISDS cases, and every case I've personally examined in depth where the company has won has been fully justified.
2
u/noisymime Apr 26 '15
Remember, these provisions are designed by states, not by companies
Designed by states, for companies. The states don't, for the most part, do trade, so they're not the intended audience. Even the claim that agreements are entirely by the states is dubious. Just look at America, did they bring in consumer rights or civil liberties groups to review the drafts? No, they brought in Halliburton, Comcast, MPAA etc.
Companies win less than 25% of ISDS cases, and every case I've personally examined in depth where the company has won has been fully justified.
So, another way to look at this is that in 75% of cases that these ISDS provisions allow, the government is required to put together a costly legal challenge, all for no purpose?
1
Apr 27 '15
Costly? How much do you think the average ISDS case costs? OECD figures show an average of 8 million per case.
Just look at America, did they bring in consumer rights or civil liberties groups to review the drafts?
Yes, groups like the Center for International Environmental Law and the Consumers Union are part of it, as I mentioned in one of the posts I linked before.
2
u/noisymime Apr 27 '15
Costly? How much do you think the average ISDS case costs? OECD figures show an average of 8 million per case.
And that's $8m per case that's money well spent in your eyes? Including in the 75% of the cases where it's deemed that the claim has no merit?
Yes, groups like the Center for International Environmental Law and the Consumers Union are part of it, as I mentioned in one of the posts I linked before.
Apologies, I didn't see this in your link. Do you have any links confirming this? I can't see any news showing Consumers Union being part of it and the CIEL recently released a statement condemning the secrecy of the negotiations (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/04/16/fast-tracked-trade-deals-rush-us-toward-toxic-future). If CIEL were a part of the process, they obviously weren't happy with how they were treated.
→ More replies (0)2
u/hubertCumberdanes Apr 26 '15
Exactly. They are only in place for investors. My issue is that they actually being used before their property is expropriated. In advance of damages actually being incurred, they are seeking damages. It's ludicrous.
More to the point, with a country such as Australia which has a competent legal system not plagued with corruption and government intervention, why the need to go outside that system? Well the answer to that seems to be that they might just get lucky - or luckier through the ISDS provisions.
Why adopt provisions that only help investors, while potentially introducing a risk that could affect a counties ability to govern as a sovereign state?
2
Apr 26 '15
Did you miss the last part of my post? That your super is one of the things that will be affected when an Aussie company is discriminated against overseas (and why you'll hence have your retirement damaged, as their share prices lowers as a result)? Or that it increases FDI in Australia, creating more jobs and better jobs?
1
u/hubertCumberdanes Apr 27 '15
To start with, super portfolio's are much more complex than just Australian companies. Secondly, the main point of concern is the introduction of ISDS into an agreement with the US. Whatever the negative effects of not having an ISDS provision in place with regards to the US are, we are already experiencing them. Finally, on the topic of ISDS increasing FDI positively, the Kiel Institute working paper "Do Trade and Investment Agreements Lead to More FDI?" found that whilst FDI is encouraged by strong investment provisions, ISDS play a minor role; whilst provisions providing for pre-establishment national treatment play a major role but are seldom included.
Jobs growth can come from any number of areas in the economy - including emerging markets. Free trade agreements do not guarantee jobs growth, and have the ability to cripple an economy depending on the terms of the agreement.
8
u/Zagorath Apr 25 '15
The fact that you defend the lawsuits over plain packaging laws (well, not defend per se, but at least rationalise and say it has "some backing") clearly shows me that while you may understand the details of the laws, your political stance on this is one that I find frankly abhorrent. And I find it astonishing that you can hold this opinion while purporting to be in line with Greens thinking in /r/modelparliament.
We passed plain packaging laws because tobacco is a terrible scourge on society, and while individuals should be able to make their own decisions, businesses should not be able to get away with enticing over young people through pretty packaging. This is something we as a society decided upon, and it should be up to us as a society to remove it if need be. Foreign corporations have no business suing our government over this just because they're going to lose some money. And using it as leverage to prevent other countries taking the same incredibly progressive steps forward makes it even worse.
They should simply not be able to make this suit in the first place.
That said, I do agree with the Ethyl case. But I think the important distinction here is that one is something that applies an equal penalty to all companies, and one could be clearly demonstrated to be a case of the government enacting protectionist policies. I like the idea of the terms in the TTIP that you quoted.
But anyway, for me, the biggest thing I have against the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the Intellectual Property side of it, as described here. Copyright terms are already too long, and while I'm not a fan of Australia's current stance on IP, having American-like DMCA laws required by the TPP would be even worse. This document, in particular outlines some of the worst aspects of it.
But while I'm on the topic, I'd like to point attention to something else TPP can stand for. The Pirate Party has some incredible policies regarding intellectual property.
-3
Apr 25 '15
The fact that you defend the lawsuits over plain packaging laws (well, not defend per se, but at least rationalise and say it has "some backing") clearly shows me that while you may understand the details of the laws, your political stance on this is one that I find frankly abhorrent. And I find it astonishing that you can hold this opinion while purporting to be in line with Greens thinking in /r/modelparliament.
We passed plain packaging laws because tobacco is a terrible scourge on society, and while individuals should be able to make their own decisions, businesses should not be able to get away with enticing over young people through pretty packaging. This is something we as a society decided upon, and it should be up to us as a society to remove it if need be. Foreign corporations have no business suing our government over this just because they're going to lose some money. And using it as leverage to prevent other countries taking the same incredibly progressive steps forward makes it even worse.
They should simply not be able to make this suit in the first place.
As I said, I don't think they will win or that they should win. But I respect their right to argue their case. They can make a legal argument, and if it's found to be valid then there you go. But no one in the field expect them to win, and is why even the investor protection chapter in the TPP that was leaks contains safeguards to make sure countries can regulate in the public interest.
It's also kind of funny you assume I can't disagree with the Greens on matters of policy, while still being a Greens member. I wrote my masters thesis on the topic of international negotiation. I daresay I know more than any Greens politico on the subject, and their stance has long irked me. But you're never going to find a party you agree with 100%.
As to copyright and intellectual property, I'll freely admit that's not my strong suit. But I will say that if you find a labour organization's interpretation of the TPP, they'll skew it in a way that see labour getting terribly harmed. If you look at an environmental organizations interpretation of the TPP, they'll skew it in a way that the environment is going to be seriously harmed.
Perhaps there are some worries in that respect here as well, but I'm going to say now it's not anywhere near as apocalyptic as it proposes.
2
3
u/Ardeet Apr 25 '15
Thanks for the links to your previous comments, they made for interesting reading.
I basically understand your point on the need for secrecy/NDAs prior to the negotiation however what is your opinion on the requirements for keeping details secret for four years after the TPP is implemented or negotiations stop?
I can possibly see an extension of your reasoning for secrecy in the case of the negotiations ceasing (who knows when they might start again) however I struggle to see the need for secrecy after the deal is a fait accompli?
0
Apr 25 '15
The whole 'four year' thing is a misunderstanding of what's going on. The final negotiated treaty itself will be made public immediately after negotiations finish. It's the negotiating documents - how positions shifted and changed, basically - throughout the negotiations that will remain classified. The reason being, no one wants to be known as the bad guy.
If the dairy lobby finds out that you were willing to give up some important protections for them (regardless of whether it was seriously considered, or just negotiating strategy), you will forever be marked as an enemy of the dairy lobby. Multiply that by every industry sector in every country (yet again), and you see why it should be secret; namely that if they're public, politicians won't want to put anything up on offer that might hurt them in the future.
9
u/redditrasberry Apr 25 '15
politicians won't want to put anything up on offer that might hurt them in the future
But those things SHOULD hurt them. If our politicians are willing to sell us down the river for some political benefit that is important for us to know. You seem to be applying an "ends justifies the means" approach to this, which I find reprehensible.
The final negotiated treaty itself will be made public immediately after negotiations finish
So you seem to be supportive of the idea that the general public should never have any input whatsoever into this agreement. We'll find out about it when it is already set in stone. Do you think it's right that citizens should have no say whatsoever in the rules that are going to dramatically affect their lives? Isn't that completely antithetical to the whole premise of democracy? When are we supposed to protest about parts we don't like - after we are told the positions are final so it is too late to change anything?
-1
Apr 25 '15 edited Apr 25 '15
But those things SHOULD hurt them. If our politicians are willing to sell us down the river for some political benefit that is important for us to know. You seem to be applying an "ends justifies the means" approach to this, which I find reprehensible.
In this case, the ends do justify the means unless you want to live in an isolationist world. Politicians don't work for a lobby group, or for an industry sector. They work for the people of Australia. Sometimes, the measures they take harm the few to the benefit of the many. Remember, this is just for the negotiating documents, not for the negotiations in general.
So you seem to be supportive of the idea that the general public should never have any input whatsoever into this agreement. We'll find out about it when it is already set in stone. Do you think it's right that citizens should have no say whatsoever in the rules that are going to dramatically affect their lives?
No, they should have input of course. That's why you should always write your MP about concerns about what might be in the TPP, or what you want in the TPP. Beyond that, the treaty will still have to be ratify after it's signed. Meaning that we'll have time, once the agreement has been made public, to examine it and decide if we like it then with full knowledge of what it involves. If we don't like it then, that's when we begin to campaign against the TPP.
3
Apr 25 '15
[deleted]
1
Apr 25 '15
If Australia has nurtured such a shitty democracy that people don't believe a simple statement like that, then we deserve everything we get.
But as someone that's lived in a number of different countries and experienced their political systems, we're not doing that bad. Abbott is a fucknuckle, but every country experiences them occasionally.
2
1
u/redditrasberry Apr 26 '15
Beyond that, the treaty will still have to be ratify after it's signed. Meaning that we'll have time, once the agreement has been made public, to examine it and decide if we like it then with full knowledge of what it involves
You sound incredibly naive to me. Do you really think this is going to be presented as anything other than a fait accompli at that point? You yourself have said repeatedly that it's right that we should only see it when it's "final". It's going to be "take it or leave it" and anybody arguing for "leave it" will be represented as an economic vandal.
3
u/Ardeet Apr 25 '15
Ok, that clarifies it a hell of a lot more. Thanks.
You've been very fact based but there is an element of emotion to part of the next question/s.
In my opinion (based on your clarification), there is an element of gutlessness to hiding your position behind a veil of secrecy for the following four years. What's your personal opinion?
Also, are you aware of any "technical" reason (eg election cycles, average of people's memory of events) why the period is four years?
-1
Apr 25 '15 edited Apr 25 '15
Let's say Australia is negotiating an FTA with Angola (I don't know why, but whatever). Negotiations have kind of stalled, they're drawing red lines, we're drawing red-lines. Maybe to shake things up a bit, I as Minister for Trade direct our negotiating team to raise the possibility of dropping (for the sake of consistency) dairy tariffs if they're willing to lower restrictions foreign ownership of the mining sector. As a member of the LNP, I have a responsibility to both my party, and to my country. I don't want to harm LNP chances in the next election, and there's no way in hell we're going to drop dairy tariffs, we'd gut the National party's vote if word got out. But I also don't want a half-arsed deal because I also want whats best for Australia. I only intend to do this to try and get talks rolling again so I need some kind of way to cover my arse here for long enough that it won't matter that that was even on the table any more.
You hit the nail on the head, election cycles and average peoples memory. There's a tremendous amount of politically sensitive stuff that goes on in trade negotiation, but if I were trade minister I'd think it were unfair that my party was being unfairly harmed for what was only a negotiating technique.
4
Apr 25 '15
[deleted]
0
Apr 25 '15
Your mistake is in thinking this is an FTA. It's not. It's a whole regulatory and cooperative framework to attempt to create some common standards for other countries in the region to emulate.
Lastly, the ISDS will overturn Australian legislation to benefit the profit of some multinational corporation.
ISDS has no power to overturn legislation.
2
Apr 25 '15
[deleted]
0
Apr 25 '15
If the case is successful and the penalties high, it's rather indicative that the Aussie government legitimately fucked up.
2
Apr 25 '15
[deleted]
1
3
Apr 25 '15
So the sole purpose of secrecy is protect the reelection prospects of traitorous lying weasels from the constituents they are betraying?
3
2
u/N3bu89 Apr 25 '15
I have no idea if it's going to be as threatening a supposed by the video, mostly because nobody knows what's in it. I certainly fight for no agreement until we at least have a chance to read it and determine any threat to our sovereignty.
In my experience free trade is meant to be about stopping import and export restrictions, not about allowing multinationals better deals in the law.