Free Trade Agreement could prevent
regulation in the public interest
The Australian government is currently participating in trade negotiations led by the US and involving
12 countries in the Pacific. Called the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,’ the scope of the deal
goes beyond what many of us understand as a ‘free trade’ agreement, and could threaten the ability
of our governments to regulate in the interests of the public and the environment.
The United States wishes to include a proposal which would allow foreign companies to sue
governments for damages if they adopt laws or policies that could ‘harm’ their investment, even if
the laws or policies are in the public interest. The proposal, called ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement,’
or ISDS, would essentially give foreign corporations power to sue governments over laws affecting
essential areas of public interest at local, state and national level.
If approved, ISDS would reduce the ability of governments to regulate the activities of foreign
companies even if the companies’ activities have a negative impact on health and the environment.
This would prevent governments from responding to community concerns and introducing
legislation in the interests of the public.
http://aftinet.org.au/cms/sites/default/files/ISDS%20FactSheet%20090913.pdf
Special rights for investors to sue governments
The US wants special rights for foreign investors included in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would allow corporations to sue governments for millions of dollars if their investments are ‘harmed’ by a law or policy, even if that law or policy is designed to protect public health or the environment. The proposal is known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS.
In Australia, farmers and members of communities influenced the NSW government to regulate coal seam gas activity close to residential suburbs and rural industries. If Australia agrees to ISDS rules in the TPP, foreign companies could sue state governments for damages over this kind of regulation. Even if the government wins the case, it can cost millions in legal fees.
The Howard government did not agree to ISDS in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement in 2004. However, the Coalition’s trade policy is to negotiate on ISDS. We urge the Government to oppose clauses in the TPP that grant special rights for foreign investors to sue governments.
"Carve-outs" and “exclusions” in areas like public welfare, healthcare and the environment have not worked other trade agreements to protect the public interest. For example, the Peru –US Free Trade Agreement and the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement didn’t stop the Renco lead mining company from suing the Peruvian government when they were required to clean up their lead pollution, or the Pacific Rim company from suing the El Salvador government because it refused a mining license for environmental reasons. Investors have pursued cases in other countries by claiming the process of developing the law did not include “fair and equitable” treatment for them.
For more information, see AFTINET's Leaflet 'Free Trade Agreement could prevent regulation in the public interest'
http://aftinet.org.au/cms/node/631
We need to be aware of the risks involved and what these agreements may mean to us
If anyone has a problem with a foreign owned power company now....think hard what the above could mean when problems arrise in the future .
It may be let these big foreign owned companies do as they please....or risk paying out huge amounts in compensation to them..
Huge amounts of OUR money .
63BvfpBL,TdNGTQg~~_7.JPG "ca04"){kind=avatar}
