1. Joint Australian and US Unions’ Statement on the Aust-US Free Trade Agreement
2. USFTA Local Government Resolution: take it to your council
3. Write to the ALP about its USFTA policy: sample letter below
4. Health Care At Risk: Seminar Sydney 20 September
5. ABC in Crisis Public Forum: Sydney 28 September

1. Joint Australian and US Unions’ Statement on the Aust-US Free Trade Agreement

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the American Confederation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organisations (AFL CIO) issued the following joint statement on the Australia US Free Trade Agreement in August 2003.

Joint Statement on the Proposed U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement

The ACTU and AFL CIO are united in the belief that increased trade can benefit workers only if it is governed by rules that protect workers’ rights, the environment, and the right of governments to safeguard the public interest. Too often, trade agreements have instead protected corporate rights at the expense of workers and their communities. These trade agreements are routinely negotiated and administered in secret, denying the public the right to have informed input into the making of trade policy. The result is flawed trade agreements that fail to create robust, equitable growth and decent employment, and thus face widespread opposition by workers and their allies.

Unfortunately, by every indication the bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) now being negotiated between Australia and the U.S. follows this failed free trade model. The ACTU and AFL CIO call upon their two governments to stake out a new path. Australia and the U.S. must use the current negotiations not to repeat the mistakes of the past, but to set a new standard for trade agreements by meeting each of the benchmarks outlined below.

Workers’ Rights: The FTA must include meaningful and enforceable commitments to the core workers’ rights outlined in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. These obligations must be in the core of the agreement, and be subject to the same enforcement mechanisms as the agreement’s commercial provisions. The ACTU and AFL CIO note that the current U.S. proposal on labour standards only allows a party to initiate disputes over the other party’s failure to enforce domestic labour standards in order to achieve a trade advantage. No enforcement action is available if a party’s labour laws are weakened or fall far short of international standards. The U.S. proposal is completely inadequate. Notwithstanding the Australian government’s reluctance to accept any labour standards clause, the ACTU and AFL CIO will not support an FTA that does not include the core ILO labour standards as an enforceable provision of the agreement.

Services: The FTA must include a broad, explicit carve-out for public services and for private services with an inherently social component, including education, employment services, health care, post, sanitation, social services, transport and utilities. Public services should be excluded regardless of whether or not the public provider competes with private providers. In addition, governments must retain their ability to regulate foreign service providers in order to enact and enforce certification and licensing standards, consumer protections, and other public interest laws.

Investment: Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) system of individually enforceable investor rights, investors have used rules on expropriations and the minimum standard of treatment to challenge environmental laws, public health and safety protections, and the domestic judicial system. The U.S. Australia FTA must reject this model and preserve each country’s authority to regulate foreign investment in the public interest. Foreign investors must not be given greater rights than those enjoyed by domestic investors, and must not be given the right to individually initiate disputes against governments before international tribunals.

Procurement: Procurement rules in NAFTA prevent governments from using tax dollars to support responsible purchasing and contracting practices that favour local suppliers or contain other non-commercial criteria. Under the U.S. Australia FTA, national and sub-national governments must retain the ability to use government procurement policies to promote local employment, assist small and medium-sized businesses, safeguard workers’ rights and human rights, and achieve other legitimate social and environmental goals.

Public Health: The U.S. Australia FTA must uphold the right of governments to take measures designed to optimise public health outcomes, such as comprehensive health insurance, standards for food, therapeutic goods, and drugs, and price regulation of pharmaceutical products. Decisions about public health and safety belong in the hands of democratically elected representatives, not tribunals of trade lawyers.

Culture: The ACTU and AFL CIO recognise that access to cultural products and services that emanate from and reflect a person’s own culture is a basic human right. Therefore, to the extent that a government’s support is limited to products and services that emanate from a nation’s cultural perspective, the FTA may include an explicit carve-out that ensures each government the unfettered ability to foster and support their own industries and to give effect to their social and cultural policy objectives.

Manufacturing: A vibrant manufacturing sector is the backbone of a healthy economy. Poorly formulated trade policies can debilitate manufacturing: in the U.S., nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1998. The U.S. Australia FTA must preserve scope for domestic policies aimed at ensuring that each country retains a diversified and high value-added manufacturing sector.

Transparency: The ACTU and AFL CIO note with concern the secrecy surrounding negotiations over the proposed bilateral FTA. Initial negotiating proposals and requests and offers on trade liberalisation have been submitted by the two governments to one another without prior release in draft form for public scrutiny and consultation. No draft negotiating text or structure for the FTA has been made available. The two governments must take steps to release draft texts and consult with the public in order to meet the basic tests of transparency and accountability in the negotiations. The final draft should be released for public consultation and submitted to the U.S. Congress and the Australian Parliament for full debate and consideration, along with a report from a Congressional or parliamentary Committee on issues raised in the consultation process. Australia should adopt the requirement for a vote of Parliament for the FTA to be approved.

The same standards on transparency and accountability must be met in the final FTA itself: governments must consult with their respective publics before initiating disputes under the agreement, dispute resolution proceedings must be fully transparent, and interested non-governmental parties must have the right to make submissions to these proceedings. The ACTU and AFL CIO will work together to press for a trade agreement that meets the goals set out above and thus benefits workers in Australia and the U.S. Both organisations will join together to oppose any agreement that falls short of these key objectives.

Top of page

2. Motion On The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement For Local Councils

AFTINET’s motion for local councils on the GATS Agreement was adopted by a number of councils in different states, as well as by the National Local Government Association Conference and the NSW Local Government Association Conference.

We now have a similar motion for councils regarding the USFTA, printed below. Please consider approaching your local council and asking them to endorse the motion.

Motion On The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement For Local Councils

Background

The current negotiations on the Australia US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) being conducted by the Australian Government and the US Government could have serious repercussions for Australian local government. The US negotiators have identified specific Australian laws and policies as ‘barriers to trade’. In addition, the AUSFTA will act as a constraint on the law and policy making capacity all levels of government in Australia, including local government. The model proposed for the agreement on both services and investment is a ‘negative list’, which means that all government regulations (including local government) are covered by the agreement unless they are specifically excluded. This has even more impact on local government than the WTO Trade in Services (GATS) agreement which is a "positive list" agreement, meaning it only fully covers those services which each government agrees to list in the agreement. .

AUSTFTA will be binding on all levels of government but there has been little if any consultation with local government about the negotiations and their implications. Many areas of local government services and regulation could be affected by the AUSFTA, including:

• Water and sewerage services

• Waste management

• Road building

• Land use planning

• Library services.

Both the US and Australian governments have supported the inclusion in the AUSFTA of provisions which allow corporations to challenge laws which impact on the corporations’ interests, and to sue governments for damages. Under a similar clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), US corporations have aggressively sued Canadian and Mexican governments regarding their laws and decisions, which have included at least one planning decision by a local government. The US Metalclad Corporation was awarded US$15.6 million, because it was refused permission by a Mexican local municipality to build a hazardous waste facility on land already so contaminated by toxic wastes that local groundwater was compromised.

Motion

That Council:

1. believes public policy regarding the regulation, funding and provision of essential services should be made democratically by governments at the national, state and local level and should not be subject to a trade agreement;

2. calls on the Federal Government to fully consult with state and local government about the implications of the AUSFTA negotiations for local government services and regulation;

3. calls on the Federal Government to support the clear exclusion of public services from the AUSFTA, including local government services,

4. calls on the Federal Government to oppose any proposals which would allow corporations to challenge regulation or sue governments ;

5. writes to the Minister for Trade concerning the above; and

6. submits the above motions for adoption by the Australian Local Government Association.

Top of page

3. Write to the ALP about its USFTA policy: sample letter below

We have prepared a sample letter to the Shadow Trade Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy. Please use it to write your own letter to Senator Conroy seeking clarification of ALP policy on the USFTA.

Senator Stephen Conroy
Shadow Minister for Trade
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senator Conroy

ALP Policy on the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement

I am writing to you to ask you to clarify ALP policy regarding the proposed Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) following a report in the Australian on August 18 which suggests this policy is being considered.

I am concerned about the AUSFTA negotiations because of their impact on access to affordable medicines. The US Under Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Grant Aldonan, has stated publicly that the US wishes to challenge reference pricing under the PBS as part of the negotiations. The Australian Financial Review of 13 August 2003 quotes Mr. Aldonan as saying that ‘there is a sense of unfairness in the US’ because US consumers paid high prices under a free market while consumers in Australia and elsewhere benefited from low ‘reference prices’ under schemes like the PBS (‘US wants reform of ‘unfair’ PBS, Australian Financial Review 13 August 2003).

The Australia Institute has undertaken research comparing wholesale prices of the most common drugs in the US and Australia (The Australia Institute, (2003) ‘Comparing Drug Prices in Australia and the US: The implications of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement’, 25 July 2003, www.tai.org.au). It found that the wholesale prices of ten of the most commonly prescribed drugs in Australia are at least 79 per cent to 306 per cent more expensive in the US. The report concluded that if reference pricing were removed under the USFTA negotiations, it is clear that prices for drugs in Australia would rise significantly.

I am concerned that the structure of the agreement unduly limits the ability of governments at all levels to make laws and policy. Negotiators have confirmed that they are using a "negative list" structure for services and investment, which means that all government regulation in these areas is subject to the agreement unless it is specifically listed as an exception. The proposed agreement also provides for corporations to challenge laws and sue governments for damages. A similar provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement has resulted in a number of US corporations challenging laws and suing governments in Canada and Mexico. The giant courier company UPS is suing Canada Post on the grounds that its public postal services are a barrier to trade.

Decisions about regulation and provision of public services should be made through national and local democratic process, not negotiated in a trade agreement. Social policies and public services should be clearly excluded from trade agreements.

I would be grateful if you could clarify ALP policy on these issues.

Yours sincerely

Name, Address, Date

Top of page

4. Health Care At Risk: A seminar on the provision of equitable and affordable access to health services

Saturday, 20^th September, 2003, 11 am. – 4 pm
The Grail Centre, 22 McHatton Street, North Sydney

Including:

• The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS): how it stands at present and the effects of changes which may come as a result of US Free Trade Agreement negotiations

Peter Sainsbury, President of Public Health Association of Australia, Assoc. Prof. in Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Sydney University

• Health care: a commodity or human service?

Helen McCabe, RN, BHA, completing her doctoral thesis on the ethics of ‘Managed Care’

• World trade in health services: the impacts of the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the US Free Trade Agreement (USFTA).
  Rev. Dr Ann Wansbrough, theologian and policy analyst for Uniting Care

Tea/coffee will be available 10. 30 –11 am. and during the lunch break. Bring your own lunch.

RSVP: Tuesday 16^th September

Suggested contribution:

Waged $15.00, Unwaged $10.00, or what you can afford

Tel: (02) 9955 3053, Fax: (02) 9954 0697

Email: grailsydney@ozemail.com.au

Top of page

5. Sydney 28 September: Public Forum: ABC in Crisis

The Eastern Suburbs Friends of the ABC presents

A PUBLIC FORUM: ABC IN CRISIS

Sunday 28 September, 1:30pm to 4 pm, Waverley Library Theatrette, 32-48 Denison Street, Bondi Junction

Introduction: Gary Cook, President, FABC NSW

Chair: Tina Bursill, Actor

Speakers:

• Quentin Dempster, ABC Presenter

• Cameron Murphy, NSW Council for Civil Liberties

• Louise Southalan, AFTINET

Contact Alison Rahill 0438 601 497 for further information

Top of page