- by Marcus Browning
- The Guardian
- Issue #2133
Photo: GPA – flickr.com (CC BY 2.0)
The Australian government never hesitates in to preach the values of Western democracy, and how Australia is an outstanding example. We regularly elect governments in ‘free and fair’ elections and our Westminster-style parliamentary system is relatively open to scrutiny.
Australia’s parliamentary system has many shortcomings, but at least legislation is usually public before it is passed and trade unions, consumer, environmental, health, education, and other groups and individuals have an opportunity to express their views, and to lobby and campaign for changes. If enough pressure is mounted, it is not unknown for a government to back down.
Even these limited democratic rights were under threat during the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This so-called “architecture for a 21st century trade agreement” was an example of trade designed to serve US corporate and strategic interests, and to act as a model for future agreements.
Aspiring participants included Australia, New Zealand, the US, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Canada, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan who battled it out over the specific provisions. Although “battling it out” was not the right term to use when it came to Australia’s subservience to the US.
The big corporations were at the table, being consulted on every move, but the public was being kept in the dark. If it were not for WikiLeaks we would still have little idea of how much the Australian government was willing to sign away, including our democratic and sovereign rights.
The US corporations, in particular, are driving the agenda – Big Pharma, big financial institutions, mining corporations et al.
Anyone who might oppose what the government is doing is kept in the dark in case they lobby or protest. As a government spokesperson said at the time “a lot of those that are opposed, they’ve got an anti-trade agenda.”
Those agitating against the deal weren’t opposed to trade itself. What people want is fair trade. The Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET), one of the main forces representing the interests of Australian people and the Australian economy, promotes fair trade.
It is also a deception to keep referring to it as if it were just about trade. It is the other aspects that the government was particularly concerned to hide.
The TPP might be referred to as a trade agreement, but only about five of its 26 chapters were about trade. The remainder go to the heart of the powers and role of government, in particular, that the agreement sought to override the government’s sovereign powers and responsibility to legislate in the interests of its people, its economy and environment.
The government’s capacity to act is shackled by the rights of corporations to sue it for billions of dollars over almost every aspect of life. Government authority could be challenged over such things as:
- price of medications
- environmental protection
- workers’ rights
- foreign investment rules
- food and tobacco labelling
- coal seam gas mining
- financial regulation
- internet privacy
- environmental protection
- government procurement, and much more.
The government claimed it was committed to protecting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Australia’s interests. But how do we know? Its promises meant nothing, especially when it so fears the reaction to its actions that it treats them as top secret.
One of the most dangerous policies on the table is the investor-state disputes settlement (ISDS) provision. ISDS gives foreign corporations the power to sue the Australian government for potential not actual, losses in profits resulting from government legislation or policy relating to health, environmental and other policies.
Cases under the ISDS would be heard not by an Australian court but by international tribunals whose decisions could override Australian courts.
The Democracy Centre has called such international arbitration “a privatised justice system for global corporations.”
“Decisions in these closed-door tribunals are made by three investment lawyers working on a for-profit basis with no obligation to balance the public interest with the profit-making interest of corporations,” Thomas McDonagh explains, in an article published by the Democracy Centre.
“Governments, meanwhile, have no corresponding right to bring legal action against corporations in these arbitration tribunals when they breach national environmental regulations or human rights laws. It’s all one-way traffic,” McDonagh warns.
“The conflict of interest between corporations hard-wired to maximise profit – even if it comes at the cost of our fresh water sources, our public health laws and our basic services – and policy making designed to serve the public interest is nowhere more apparent than in these arbitration cases. The means of mediating this conflict of interest and blocking unbridled profit-making is the democratic process.
“The TPP leaks make it ever clearer, however, that [free] trade agreements are the mechanisms that corporations are now using to thwart democracy and to undermine the ability for us to pressure our governments to take action on a range of urgent public issues,” McDonagh said.
The TPP fell through after Trump withdrew the US from the agreement. It was succeeded by the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). If you look up its provisions, you’ll find one allowing governments to “promote international labour rights” – in other words, governments could insist that suppliers respect international law relating to workers rights. It sounds good, but the provision is listed under ‘suspended provisions.’
Somebody didn’t want that one in. The undemocratic spirit of the TPP is still with us.
