It should also be concerned about the potential for "regulatory chill" from the clauses that would prevent further liberalisation of Australia's intellectual property and labour laws after it had been ratified.
How did the word 'further' get in there? There hasn't been any liberalisation of Australia's IP or labour laws in recent times, with IP laws in particular being tightened up as a result of AUSFTA (Australia - US Free Trade Agreement).
What this tells me is you have someone in that DA's office who has too much ambition. It seems likely someone wanted to pad their statistics for child porn prosecutions, to help a future bid for public office. This is someone to watch, because this is a person who cares more for personal power than for justice or actually serving the community.
What this tells me that you think the entire world's legal system is modelled on that in the US.
Which is exactly what the ISDS is being used for in a majority of cases.
No it's not.
"State conduct most frequently challenged by investors in 2015 included legislative reforms in the renewable energy sector, alleged direct expropriations of investments, alleged discriminatory treatment, and revocation or denial of licences or permits."
Source: ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2015’ (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 2016)
My country was on the receiving end of an ISDS lawsuit over plain-packaging cigarettes. You can't imagine what it's like to have your country's sovereignty violated by an international company who just wants to exploit you for money.
And your country prevailed. How was your country's sovereignty violated? Your country signed up to a treaty that had arbitration provisions, and an investor took advantage of them to initiate a dispute, which it lost.
It's worth mentioning that ISDS lawsuits won't necessarily come from *foreign* investors. The Canadian mining company Lone Star Pine sued the Canadian government for $250 million after the province of Quebec banned fracking. They were able to do so under NAFTA’s ISDS rules, using their Delaware-registered subsidiary.
Lone Pine Resources Inc is a US company, which has a Canadian subsidiary - Lone Pine Resources Canada Ltd.
Oh dear. The trouble with getting all your information from old articles is that you continue to live in the dark, with conspiracy theories making your thinking muddled. I assume you're basing your wild but incorrect assumptions on articles such as this: https://www.gunowners.org/alert5072015.htm
1) The TPP is not a "... highly classified document that only a few have even read in its entirety". It is a public document, and has been so since the agreement was signed. You can read it here: https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
For example, should a company based on Malaysia have the right to sue the state of Oregon because it passed a regulation ( say a food safety or labeling requirement) that affected the profit margins of the Malaysian company's products?
On its own, no.
That's what TPP grants!
No it doesn't. For a start, the state of Oregon is not a party to the TPP. But the USA is, and a dispute could be raised with the USA if it is alleged that terms of the Agreement were breached, and as a result the profits of the Malaysian company were threatened.
I wonder if the fast track authority the US Congress gave to Obama for this bill will transfer to the next president, or if that has to be voted again?
FTA is a red herring. Let's suppose that Congress agrees with most aspects of TPP, except (say) ISDS. With FTA, it can only vote yes or no, so it could only express its displeasure by voting no.
Without FTA, it could debate each clause and, in theory, approve everything except ISDS. Given that the Agreement has been signed, and cannot now be changed, that is the equivalent of a no vote.
What is the difference, apart from more hot air on the Hill?