The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement: Implications for public health regulation and access to medicines
PHM Oz is concerned about proposed intellectual property and investment provisions in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) that could undermine public health regulation and access to essential medicines.
The TPPA is a regional agreement currently being negotiated between Australia, the US, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia.
Contents |
Public health implications
Threats to Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
In 2003-4, public health advocates worked hard (and mostly successfully) to protect our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). These hard won gains are now under threat.
Under the PBS, the wholesale price of medicines is kept relatively low, enabling low retail prices for consumers. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee sets the prices through a process of comparison with cheaper generic medicines. In the US, the prices of common prescription medicines are three to ten times higher than they are in Australia.
Big pharmaceutical companies in the US argue that Australia's PBS prevents them from enjoying the full benefits of their intellectual property rights. The TPPA provides another opportunity for big pharma to ask for higher prices and to prevent new policies from being put in place to control prices. These change could see huge increases in the cost of the PBS, which would be passed on to consumers. This would have greatest impact on the most vulnerable groups in our population.
Threats to public health regulation, including tobacco plain packaging
Proposed expropriation and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the TPPA could enable foreign corporations to sue governments over legislation that is deemed to reduce the value of their investments. Big Tobacco is likely to take advantage of such provisions to sue the Australian government over tobacco plain packaging legislation.
Threats to access to essential medicines in developing countries
The US, at the behest of pharmaceutical companies, is seeking highly restrictive intellectual property provisions that could compromise access to essential medicines such as HIV/AIDS drugs in developing countries involved in the TPPA.
Provisions sought by the US include: expanded patent protections, elimination of pre-grant opposition (opposition by third parties to unmerited patents) and greater rights for pharmaceutical companies in court. These provisions would result in limited generic competition and higher drug prices.
The Australian Government's position
The Australian Government's Trade Policy Statement Trading our Way to More Jobs and Prosperity was released in April 2011. In this statement, the Government makes explicit commitments to rejecting provisions that might constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on 'social, environmental and economic matters'. The trade policy statement says: 'The Government has not and will not accept provisions that limit its capacity to put health warnings or plain packaging requirements on tobacco products or its ability to continue the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme' (p. 14). The statement also excludes investor-state dispute resolution procedures in trade agreements.
The Australian Government is likely to come under increasing pressure from the US to include TRIPS Plus intellectual property provisions and investment provisions in the TPPA. It is essential that the Australian Government stands firm and continues to reject these provisions.
Campaign activities
PHM Oz has joined with many other civil society organisations in signing an open letter to Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson protesting the secrecy under which TPPA negotiations are being conducted, and calling for an open and transparent negotiation process.
Read the AFTINET Press Release
PHM Oz has also endorsed an AFTINET sign-on letter to the trade ministers of the TPPA negotiating countries. This letter urges the parties to consider excluding intellectual property and pharmaceuticals provisions from the TPPA or at least to table alternatives to the TRIPS-plus model.
Further information
Visit the AFTINET (Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network) website
Read the AFTINET TPPA Campain Leaflet
Summaries of the health issues
AFTINET Leaflet: Don't Trade Away Health
Gleeson, D. (2011) Trade agreement threatens health in Australia and Pacific. The Canberra Times, 3 August 2011.
Croakey: New trade agreement threatens Australia’s laws on medicines and tobacco
Intellectual property provisions and access to medicines
Faunce, T. A., & Townsend, R. (2011). The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: challenges for Australian health and medical policies. MJA, 194(2), 83-86.
Public Citizen (2011) Briefing memo: Vietnam and the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement
Bilaterals.org (2011) US breaks UN AIDS summit commitment on access to treatment
The Bangkok Declaration on Free Trade Agreements & Access to Medicines
Leaked US paper on eliminating pre-grant opposition
Public Citizen analysis of the US paper on eliminating pre-grant opposition
Leaked US Draft Trans Pacific Partnership Intellectual Property Rights Chapter
Public Citizen Analysis of the U.S. Intellectual Property Proposal and Australian Law
Faunce, T. & Townsend, R. (2010) Potential Impact of the TPPA on Public Health and Medicine Policies Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Investment provisions and tobacco plain packaging
Tienhaara, K. & Faunce, T. (2011) Gillard must repel big tobacco’s latest attack. Canberra Times.
Gleeson, D. & Legge, D. (2011) [http://theconversation.edu.au/big-tobacco-v-australia-dangers-looming-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-1943
Big Tobacco v Australia: dangers looming in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.] The Conversation, 7 July.
Tienhaara, K. (2010) Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Submission to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2010.
Joint PHAA & AFTINET media release, 1 September 2011 Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement proposals increase corporate rights, reduce access to affordable medicines, say public health and fair trade groups.
Other useful references
Ranald, P. (2011) The experience of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement: lessons for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations. Paper presented at the Stakeholders Forum, seventh round of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, June 19, 2011, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Order the book 'No Ordinary Deal: Unmasking the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement, edited by Jane Kelsey (2010). About the book: At a time when the global financial crisis has exposed deep flaws in the global free market, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Chile, Peru and Vietnam are negotiating a free-trade agreement initiated by the US which resurrects the issues raised by the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2004, including higher prices for Australian medicines, less local media content and deregulation of GE food. Jane Kelsey and her international team of expert commentators, including Dr Patricia Ranald, expose the myths of yet another neo-liberal adventure.
