Archives 02-07 August 2004
Saturday, 7 August 2004
Shaun Carney's Good News About Latham, Bad News About Labor ...there is also a solid group of Labor Party members, several of them holding senior positions in the shadow cabinet, who identify closely with America's political ideals and its diplomatic, military and corporate behaviour.
Latham came up hard against the diversity of views on the way to announcing Labor's position. On Thursday of last week, after canvassing widely across the party and the broader Labor movement, his inclination was to go with his initial assessment of the FTA, which was that it was not a good enough deal for Australia and should be opposed by Labor.
But the following day, senior colleagues from the pro-American segment of his front bench told him they could not - and perhaps would not - follow him if he went down that road.
This week, [Latham] bounced back into contention. In taking a course of action that could lead to the FTA not going through before the election, Latham - who has never really liked the agreement - seems to have at least half-listened to himself.
Shaun Carney: Latham evades the sharks |
Evergreening In Oz To Be Worse Than Us Or Canada Under Fta The evergreening article in the Australia-US FTA (article 17.10.4) is far worse than the US or Canadian versions.
[It] was a central objective of the US pharmaceutical companies in the FTA negotiations. Labor's proposed legislative penalty for evergreening is a lowest-common denominator solution. The US will willingly threaten cross-retaliation under the FTA in areas such as agriculture or manufacturing if it doesn't get what it wants in areas such as intellectual property.
Thomas Faunce: The awful truth about evergreening |
Friday, 6 August 2004
Howard's Treacherous Abandonment of David Hicks Leigh Sales, Letter from Washington: "David Hicks: Howard's wild card"
While Australia agreed to trust its nationals wholly to the Pentagon's oversight more than a year ago, signing off on a deal with the Bush administration, the British Government refused, and continues to do so.
As recently as last month, the British Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, said the commissions were incapable of delivering fair trials and that that Blair Government would not compromise on certain principles.
The British obstinacy has secured the repatriation of five of their detainees (who were released almost immediately upon their return to the United Kingdom). Four remain at Guantanamo; none are yet slated for trial.
The Australian public must be assured that the Howard Government hasn't abandoned two of its nationals to a kangaroo court that other nations wouldn't accept for their citizens. The conduct of the Hicks trial will be critical in helping Australians make that assessment. John Howard needs the trial to affirm his decision, not Tony Blair's. |
Good oil on the FTA As John Howard escapes to Samoa to make one of his infrequent appearances at the Pacific Islands Forum, the Coalition's anti-American tirades against Labor for its admittedly expedient pro-Australian stance on the FTA will be left to his henchmen. Expect outbursts every hour on the hour over the weekend.
Meanwhile, here are three responses to Howard's turnover of sovereignty to the Americans, all from Thursday's PM radio program. By clicking on the links you can also get to the audio of the interviews, which will be well worth it. Excerpts follow each link:
Howard missing the point over FTA and patent law: expert
Dr Tom Faunce, Senior Lecturer at the ANU's Medical School:
It doesn't appear to me that the Liberal Party is particularly concerned about [helping Australian citizens avoid huge drug prices], and talking about what the law is in Australia at the moment shows that the Government isn't focussed on the actual terms of the trade agreement, and what implications they're going to have.
It's no good talking about what our laws are at the moment. The fact is, once you've got a trade agreement, the Americans will be able to pressure us by pressure of trade disputes to get what laws they want. They'll change our laws by pressuring us through trade. It doesn't matter what our laws are at the moment.
[John Howard's] not helping, is he? I mean, Latham's trying to come up with solutions; he's trying to work his way through it. All John Howard is being is negative. He doesn't really care that Australians are going to face drug prices that are not only four times the co-payment that they've got now, but if the PBS collapses, it's four times the price that the Government's paying that individual citizens are paying. That's a huge problem. Why shouldn't he be helping the Labor Party come up with a solution?
Room for re-negotiation of FTA: legal expert
Don Rothwell, Challis Professor of International Law and Director of the Centre for International and Global Law at Sydney University, with compere Mark Colvin:
DON ROTHWELL: ... in fact there's still an opportunity for renegotiation of certain aspects of the Free Trade Agreement.
MARK COLVIN: Even after George Bush has signed it?
DON ROTHWELL: Yes, because the agreement is not yet in effect. And Australia hasn't ratified it, and neither do I believe that the United States has actually ratified it just yet. So there's still potential for renegotiation though of course politically that might be quite difficult, but legally it's still certainly possible.
MARK COLVIN: But as you say politically, very difficult.
DON ROTHWELL: Well, we don't know the outcome of the US election, and we don't know the outcome of the pending Australian election. So those are factors that we just aren't aware of at the moment.
MARK COLVIN: So it could be on the table there?
DON ROTHWELL: It could most certainly be, yes.
Pharmaceuticals industry missing in action in FTA debate
Dr Ken Harvey, lecturer at La Trobe University's School of Health, with reporter Alison Caldwell:
ALISON CALDWELL: In a debate about the future of Australia's PBS under the Free Trade Agreement, you'd think the pharmaceutical companies themselves would have a thing or two to say about the issues.
Over the past four days, politicians, economists, patent lawyers and academics have dominated the discussion. But not a peep has been heard from the likes of Pfizer, Roche or Merck Sharp and Dohme, for example.
Medicines Australia represents those drug companies. Its Chief Executive is Kieran Schneeman, a former Howard Government staffer.
The board is made up of managing directors of various multi national drug companies, whose American head officers view the PBS as anti-competitive. Medicines Australia has been absent from the recent debate.
KEN HARVEY: Certainly, you know, there's been a number of public meetings that they've declined to attend, and they obviously declined to attend the Four Corners program earlier this week. So a low profile is one explanation, unwilling to defend the indefensible is another. |
FTA: Latham Transforms Our Despair From Visceral To Surreal
by Harold Hark
5 August 2004Just when we thought it was all over for Labor and Australia, Mark Latham, proving he's no slouch at the back room poker game of politics, came up with a double whammy for the master trickster. He's called John Howard's bluff with a pair of aces. We know the PM has nothing in his hand, but no one has ever outbluffed him before. For the rest of us, it's like being condemned to death, but just before that long walk down the green mile, the warden not only announces a temporary stay of execution, but holds an impromptu vaudeville show starring the entire prison staff. More... |
Today At The FTA Follies Why does the Government claim standing up for Australia's interests is anti-American? By the same logic, the Government's pro-American stance must be anti-Australian.
An anti-Australian Australian Government? Clearly this is nonsense, as are the Government's shrill claims of anti-Americanism.
The ruckus is simply the debate the Australian people should have had months ago but couldn't, as the details of the FTA were being kept under wraps. If the Government had disclosed the facts earlier they would have found out earlier that important aspects of the FTA (such as chapter 17 on patents and copyright) are a lemon.
John Dalton, Letter to The Australian, 5/8/04 |
Sydney pharmacist David Preswick says he has witnessed many attempts by pharmaceutical companies to protect their best-selling drugs. He too cites Losec as the best example of how the system works.
"Losec is the most classic example. In order to extend the patent, they changed the dose from a capsule to a tablet and managed to get a patent on the tablet," he says.
"Then they changed the chemical entity slightly and brought out a drug called Nexium rather than making a new drug.
"Big drug companies will always do their best to extend patents."
Consumer advocates also argue that under the FTA, pharmaceutical companies will have more time to stop generic drug companies from developing cheaper versions of their brand drugs.
The Australian Consumers Association's Nicola Ballenden says under existing regulations generic drug makers do not have to notify the original pharmaceutical company that they are developing a cheaper version until their generic drug is registered by the Therapeutic Drugs Administration.
"By then it's pretty much too late for the pharmaceutical company to slap an injunction on the generic drug maker.
"However, under the FTA the generic drug company will have to notify them sooner, giving the pharmaceutical companies more time to come up with patent claims to delay the generic drug coming on to the market."
Preswick, a pharmacist with 22 years' experience, says the availability of generic drugs is vital to consumers.
Clara Pirani: Patently unfair practices |
He claims the government received $88,000 from Pfizer and nearly $80,000 from GlaxoSmithKline in the past six years, according to ABC radio.
"It is a disturbing coincidence that you find that the people who have made these major contributions are the principal beneficiaries of the issues the government's holding out on," he told ABC radio.
The Age: Drug firms won't pressure us: government |
Australia went to war in Iraq for no better reason than it was an American adventure and Australia was a loyal ally. This is the real scandal. Australia's defence and intelligence community played no part in the decision-making process, except to provide public relations back-up for the decision to invade Iraq in defiance of the United Nations.
And our reward? A free trade agreement with the United States which, if it gets through the Senate, will condemn Australia to sink back to being mainly reliant on exporting agricultural and raw material commodities, as well as tourism to pay its way in the world.
The ALP has 43 reservations about the agreement. If each was acted on, there would be safety nets for some of the expectations and assurances the Government claims are built into the agreement. Labor also says it will block the FTA if two of its reservations are not dealt with. Maybe. But the claim that it can take up the remaining issues with the US if the ALP wins the election can be taken with a grain of salt. The only concessions Australia will get from the US, if any, will be before the agreement passes the Australian Senate.
Ken Davidson: How we are losing the export race |
Businessman Of The Week  Juan Pio Paiva
Paraguayan supermarket owner Juan Pio Paiva has been awarded top honours in boardrooms the world over for upholding the universal business credo: Profit Over People.
The award goes to the astute Paiva for ordering security guards to close all exits to his burning establishment to prevent patrons from exiting the building without first paying.
That some 450 lives were lost in the ensuing stampede was assessed by business leaders to have in no way interfered with Paiva's dedication to World's Best Practice in dealing with emergencies concerning loss of profit.
One Wall Street wag was heard to say, "At least he's not up for corruption like the rest of us!"
Indeed, Paiva has been arrested on the lesser charge of shopper manslaughter. After serving his maximum sentence of one month in prison, Paiva told reporters that he intends to write a book on his adventure, tentatively titled: "For every sucker who dies, another is born."
Paraguay fire: Store owner charged |
Former member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee says FTA puts Australia's PBS on the negotiating table DAVID HENRY on ABC The World Today: And what the Government has done by putting by the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme into the Free Trade Agreement, is give them [drug industries] opportunities and give them license and encouragement to challenge the PBS across a whole range of areas over time in their attempts to protect their intellectual property, to get higher prices, to get more relaxed indications, because this system acts as a benchmark for systems in other countries.
On the other hand, CLAUDE BARFIELD, specialist in International Trade Policy with the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, begs to differ. Har har.
Read all about it: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme central to FTA dispute |
Amendments Don't Mean A Thing If US Won't Swing PETER DRAHOS on ABC PM: While I think the proposals are well intentioned, ultimately they don't really achieve the objective of protecting the PBS. What really matters is the text in the actual agreement. That is what a free trade panel deciding our obligations under the act will look at.
That's what will ultimately govern a dispute resolution process, not the implementing legislation the Labor Party dream up.
It's like entering into a contract. We've entered into a contract with the United States and that's the contract that will determine whether or not we've fulfilled our obligations. The multinationals, that are really the architects of this free trade agreement, will look at our implementing legislation and they will ask themselves, "are the Australians complying? Are they doing what they have undertaken to do in the free trade agreement?"
And if they come to the conclusion that we haven't complied, then they will take us to court or the equivalent of a court, namely the dispute resolution process that is in the free trade agreement.
I think that if the Americans do not get what they want out of this agreement, vis-à-vis the PBS, then they will ultimately take the matter to trade dispute resolution.
The whole point of this agreement is to obtain higher prices to deal with the domestic crises in the United States, to deal with the fact that PBS represents world's best practice for Australia producing cheaper medicines. That is the entire point of this.
Read all about it: ABC: PM |
Latham Stalls For Time With Safeguards With the latest Newspoll dipping into disaster territory for Labor, there was nothing Mark Latham could do but save face with two amendments to the FTA, specific to the PBS and cultural content in the media. The amendments are being tabled in the Senate today.
"It's absolutely vital to protect the content rules, to enshrine them in legislation and absolutely vital to ensure there's no weakening of the PBS through the dodgy patent applications that would delay the cheaper generic drugs coming on to the Australian market," Latham said.
Government attack dogs may want to watch their step here. While the FTA is good for the business interests they look after exclusively, the people (whom neither major party seems to care about beyond bribes for votes) don't want it. If Howard and Co. treat these amendments with derision, their true colours (red, white and blue) may turn their faces ghost-white.
The tabled safeguards will get up in the Senate, but, as Bob Brown wonders, what if they are knocked back in the House of Reps? Back to the Senate and yet another confrontation with a divided Labor party? What will Latham do then?
Bob Brown also wonders why none of the other egregious problems with this one way deal were mentioned. -HH
And then there is the little problem of the Senate Interim Report nominating one reason to sign the deal, with 42 recommendations advising caution. Any reasonable assessment from such a report would be to put the thing on the backburner until after the election and then renegotiate a better deal.
We'll have to wait to see if Latham has turned Howard's wedge politics back on him. It's not likely, since no one on the planet can come within cooee of stinging this political grifter. Howard is the master who has turned what is ostensibly Labor's Pro-Australian stance (a better FTA) into something vile and anti-American. You've got to hand it to him. -HH
Tim Colebatch: Why a world trade deal is better than the FTA |
Mark Latham Accepts the award... (Courtesy: Bill Leak, The Australian) |
...for his performance as Lapdog Jr. in "Sold to America"... (Courtesy: John Spooner, The Age) |
...while preparing for his next role with Lapdog Sr. (Courtesy: Ron Tandberg, The Age) |
Monday, 2 August 2004
Who's afraid of the FTA, Mr Latham? Shaun Carney (Opinion, 31/7) writes that many Labor MPs acknowledge that on the economics the US free trade agreement should not get their assent, but that the political view is that if Labor opposes it, it will be seen as being "anti-American".
This is ridiculous! If it is a bad deal the Labor Party should not pass it - full stop. Trade deals are for trade, defence agreements are for defence. The two issues should not be confused. The Australian public are not so stupid that they cannot understand the difference.
Carney also suggests that if Mark Latham opposes the FTA he would have to be prepared to talk about little else all the way to the election, and the vote could become a plebiscite on the FTA. If so, the Labor Party has a very good chance of winning. What little opinion polling has been done (notably by the AMWU) shows the majority of the public does not support the FTA, and the more people are informed about the deal the more likely they are to oppose it. Bring it on!
Alan Viney, Letter to The Age, 2/8/04 |
Chicken Hawks Find Sanctuary in Coward's Castle: Three letters to the Oz The veteran community would not be surprised at the number of politicians from both sides who shirked their responsibilities when it came to their National Service obligations during the Vietnam War.
Revelations that Defence Minister Robert Hill was one of those who put his needs above that of a nation committed to a war in South Vietnam goes a long way to explaining why our politicians are so detached from the reality of committing our military to questionable wars and the effect it has on those who are doing their dirty work.
This hypocrisy does not end there as there would be very little chance any of their offspring have ever been offered up as cannon fodder.
Given few of them ever see action, it's little wonder they are so detached from the damage suffered by those whom they so readily commit.
Because they have no direct contact with these damaged men and women, they see no reason to look after them when they return mental and physical cripples.
D. Fraser, Letter to The Australian, 2/8/04
(Fraser hits the mark by describing our politicians as being "detached". For the quintessential example of the gender that is not detached and who would not be sending young men to war for no good reason, see the final scenes in the harrowing film Thirteen.) - HH
Sorry, Senator, but the moment you became Minister for Defence and committed the children of other Australians to a war based on at best unsound, and at worst deceitful grounds, it ceased to be just your business.
It is now the right of every Australian to know why you were unable to comply with your call-up notice. We need to know why you were unable to do your bit in an unpopular war to which the Liberal Party, including state branches, were totally committed.
In one respect, it is a pity you didn't get to serve in Vietnam. I did and I can assure you that politicians or their offspring serving in the defence forces was as unique then as it would be now.
Michael O'Brien, Letter to The Australian, 2/8/04I'm not an especially embittered person, but having been imprisoned (twice) as a young man for resisting the conscription lottery, I would be grateful if The Australian were to publish the names of all of our crop of war-mongering politicians in Canberra who, during their youth, avoided compulsory military service by privileging certain loopholes - not just the few ("Hill, Beazley top list of MP draft avoiders"). Thanking in advance.
John R. Wilson, Letter to The Australian, 2/8/04 |
|
