Trans Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations

What is our government trading away in the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations?

We'd love to tell you all about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) free trade negotiations and what is being traded away on your behalf. But the government doesn't want anybody to know.

However, leaked documents show that the US negotiators want to:

  • Undermine our PBS, making medicines more expensive;
  • Overturn our protections against genetically modified crops and food;
  • Weaken Australia's support for local content and TV and radio;
  • Give multinational corproations the right to sue governments, for example to stop good laws like plain packaging of cigarettes; and
  • Water down labour rights and environmental standards

Secrecy is no way to trade. The government must tell us what it is prepared to trade away.

Trade DL flyer

Latest on Trans Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations

media-releases

National Interest Analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a farce

09 Feb 2016

Greens spokesperson for Trade, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, has labelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) National Interest Analysis, tabled today in Parliament, a farce and reiterated his call for the Government to refer the entire TPP text to the Productivity Commission for independent assessment.

 

Senator Whish-Wilson said, “The TPP National Interest Analysis presented to Parliament is not an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of this agreement; it is simply a more detailed set of talking points coming from DFAT and Andrew Robb’s office.

media-releases

Andrew Robb is running scared on independent TPP scrutiny

04 Feb 2016

Today Andrew Robb has signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) on behalf of the Australian government. Greens spokesperson for Trade, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, provides the following comments.

media-releases

Greens members unanimously reject dangerous and undemocratic TPP and ChAFTA deals

08 Nov 2015

Today during the plenary session of the Australian Greens national conference, Greens party members have unanimously passed a resolution opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Chinese-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA).

The motion reads, “That the Greens: (a) oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and similar deals that are negotiated in secret, empower corporations to sue governments, or that threaten Australia’s labour, health or environment laws; and (b) call on the Australian parliament to reject the TPPA and the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.”

 

Greens spokesperson for Trade, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson has welcomed this resolution from the party membership who feel strongly about these dangerous and undemocratic trade agreements.

media-releases

Greens call on Government to refer Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) to Productivity Commission

07 Oct 2015

The Australian Greens spokesperson for Trade, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, has written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to request that he refers the entire Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) to the Productivity Commission for full economic assessment.

Senator Whish-Wilson said, “The public and the Parliament have a right to hear the full story about the TPP, not just the spin from the government.

media-releases

Turnbull and Robb give US corporations the right to sue Australia

06 Oct 2015

Malcolm Turnbull and Andrew Robb have done what John Howard and Mark Vaile refused to do: Via the TPP they have granted US corporations to the right to sue the Australian government over making laws in the public interest.

“The United States pushed hard for the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the 2004 US Free Trade Agreement but then Australia refused.

Trade Minister Vaille said at the time, “If we had that mechanism in there, it would enable foreign direct investors—if they were aggrieved about a decision taken by a local government body or a state government—to seek a remedy extraterritorially. We do not believe that is necessary in an agreement between two highly developed economies with very transparent legal systems that provide the opportunity for remedy within the state where the dispute may exist…”

View all