|
US Free Trade Agreement new leaflet and campaign package from the Australian Free Trade and Investment Network [AFTINET]. Please distribute the leaflet and send a letter this week. The Australia US Free Trade agreement negotiations begin this week, despite an independent study showing that Australia will suffer economic losses from such an agreement, and at the very time when war may also begin. AFTINET has produced an updated leaflet, letter to the Minister and letter to the media which are on our website www.aftinet.org.au The leaflet is also attached to this bulletin in rtf format. The leaflet outlines the US demands about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, private investment in essential services like health, education and water, abolition of Australian content rules in film and TV, labelling of genetically modified food and abolition of the Foreign Investment Review Board and minimum Australian investment requirements in Telstra, media, and airlines. Please if you can distribute the leaflet to your networks and send a letter to the Minister. AFTINET’s view that essential services and social policies should not be determined by trade negotiations but by public debate and parliamentary process received good coverage in the Financial Review on March 3 and the Sydney Morning Herald on March 4. See www.aftinet.org.au for more information. The leaflet: [cut and paste into a word document for better printing] Trading Australia Away? " A way of viewing the economic association from the US perspective is to see [Australia] as the addition of another medium sized state roughly equivalent in GDP to that of Pennsylvania" (Government report on the FTA, Australian APEC Study Centre, 2001, p 48). The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement is being negotiated over the next two years behind closed doors. It would be a legally binding agreement to remove all trade barriers between the USA and Australia. The Trade Minister announced in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15/11/02 that there were no areas off limits in the negotiations. We are deeply concerned about the US Free Trade Agreement because: · It is an unequal bargaining relationship. The Australian economy is only 4% of the size of the US economy. The government's own background paper says that the US sees Australia in economic terms as equivalent to one of its own states. · There are no economic benefits for Australia The economic gains predicted by the government study are quite low and based on the unrealistic assumption that all trade barriers will be removed, including in goods and agriculture. An independent study by ACIL Consultants shows that there would be net losses to Australia from trade lost to other countries. See www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/GLC/ACIL-ABridgeTooFar.pdf · Trade should not be linked with security issues: In the past these have been separated but now both governments are saying that the Free Trade Agreement will reinforce the security relationship. Australia should not be seen as bound to the US on economic and security issues. This is likely to damage Australia's relationships with other trading partners in our region to which over half our exports go. The US Government and US corporations have targeted important Australian public policies as barriers to trade to be abolished or changed. They are: · The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which makes medicines more affordable to most Australians, especially those on low incomes. The Australian government uses bulk purchasing of medicines to achieve this. US pharmaceutical companies want changes to the scheme to get higher prices for their products. This is a vital health and social equity policy which should not be negotiated in a trade agreement. · The Foreign Investment Review Board, and requirements for minimum Australian ownership in some industries. The US wants to abolish the power of the Foreign Investment Review Board to review foreign investment in the national interest, and to remove any limit on foreign investment media, telecommunications, airlines and banking. 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: US corporations want to invest in these services, ignoring the fact that Australian people and their governments 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 signed away in a trade agreement. · Australian content rules in film, television and music. 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 and growing industry. · Labelling and regulation of genetically modified food: The US is the largest producer of food containing GMOs. Lobbying by agribusiness companies has ensured that there are no US rules for labelling to show GMO content in food. Australia has labelling requirements and a regulatory regime for GMO crops because consumers want to know whether food contains GMOs, so that they can make an informed choice. This attempt to remove the democratic right of informed choice from consumers should be rejected. · Australia's quarantine standards which the US claims 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 Most Australians strongly support these policies and see them as expressions of Australia's economic, social and cultural independence, which should not be negotiated in a trade agreement. The government says it will maintain policy objectives but that the issues are still up for negotiation. We call upon the government to: · cease negotiations which could endanger important
social policies For more information see the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network www.aftinet.org.au Research by Dr Patricia Ranald and Louise Southalan Public
Interest Advocacy Centre. Thanks to the Sisters of Charity Foundation,
the Uniting Church, the Australian Education Union and the Australian
Manufacturing Workers Union for funding support.
|