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.