Email: Mark.Vaile.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Mr Vaile,

I write to express grave concerns about the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement negotiations. The government is entering into these negotiations despite the fact that neither of the two studies on the AUSFTA project significant economic gains for Australia. The study by ACIL Consulting study predicts economic losses, while the Australian APEC Study Centre report predicts small economic gains, based on the assumption that all agricultural barriers to trade will be removed, which it concedes is unlikely.

In such a bilateral trade negotiation Australia is in a very weak bargaining position given the relative sizes of the US and Australian economies. This is confirmed by Australian APEC Study Centre paper in its statement that "A way of viewing the economic association from the US perspective is to see it as the addition of another medium sized state roughly equivalent in GDP to that of Pennsylvania" (Australian APEC Study Centre 2001 p 48).

I am deeply concerned that US negotiators and corporations have defined many Australian public policies as barriers to trade. You have stated that no areas are off-limits in the negotiations. I am not reassured by your statement of March 3 that the negotiations will not impair the ability to "deliver fundamental objectives in health care, education, consumer protection and supporting Australian culture and identity", since this confirms that these issues will still be the subject of negotiations. Major targets of the US negotiators include:

• The Foreign Investment Review Board, and requirements for minimum Australian ownership in some industries. Australia has such requirements through legislation in only a few strategic industries like the media, telecommunications, airlines and banking. The Foreign Investment Review Board has the power to review foreign investment in the national interest. Its discretion is very seldom exercised, but it is a power which the Australian government should retain. The US is also seeking the right for corporations to challenge laws and sue governments, which is unacceptable

• Essential services like health, education and water: the US wants US services firms to invest in these services. Australians have made the democratic decision that public regulation and often public provision of these services is required to ensure that there is equitable access to high quality essential services. Decisions about these issues are a matter of social policy and should not be negotiated in a trade agreement.

• Australian content rules in audio-visual media. These are a vital pillar of Australia’s cultural identity and diversity which ensures that Australian voices are heard and Australian stories are told They foster a local skills base which enables quality films and television programs to be made here. The removal of these rules would be an attack on Australia's culture and would also destroy a vital industry.

• The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme makes medicines more affordable to most Australians, especially those on low incomes. US pharmaceutical companies are seeking higher prices for medicines in Australia, which would make them unaffordable for many Australians. This is a vital health and social equity policy which should not be the subject of negotiations in a trade agreement.

• Labelling and regulation of genetically modified food: The US is the largest producer of food containing GMOs and lobbying by agribusiness companies has ensured that there is no US requirement for labelling to show GMO content in food. Australia has labelling requirements and a regulatory regime for GMO crops because there is an overwhelming desire by consumers to know whether food contains GMOs, so that they can make an informed choice. This is an attempt to remove the democratic right of informed choice from consumers and should be rejected.

• Australia's quarantine standards which the US alleges are used as a "means of restricting trade". Australia has relatively high quarantine standards because as an island country we are disease-free in some areas, and the impact of such diseases would be devastating. The government should not compromise these standards in trade negotiations

• Local preferences in government purchasing: the US is seeking abolition of some Federal and state government purchasing arrangements which ensure that smaller local firms have access to purchasing contracts, or require transnational companies with government purchasing contracts to develop relationships with local firms. These arrangements contribute to local jobs and economic development and should not be negotiated away in a trade agreement .

I strongly support these policies and see them as expressions of Australia's economic and cultural independence. They should not be negotiated in a trade agreement. This is unacceptable and would endanger Australia's economic independence, culture, access to essential services and health and safety.

Yours sincerely

(Name, Address, Date)

Back to AFTINET Home Page