As we come together with friends and family, to celebrate and reflect on the achievements and values of a free and democratic Australia on our national day, it is quite worrying to see that the Australian government continues to participate in secretive negotiations being held in Guadalajara, Mexico today.

Currently in their 7th round of negotiations, the deceptively named ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’ (ACTA) represents an expansion of the US-led maximalist copyright agenda with little regard for fundamental rights or transparency.

According to leaked documents from the European Commission, the agreement may contain provisions within it that will;

• burden Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with a de facto copyright enforcement role, requiring all private communication to be monitored;
• require a global implementation of ‘graduated response’ measures. These measures are better known as ‘three-strikes’ – which will see people, on allegation (but not proof) of copyright infringement, disconnected from one of the most important communication mediums with scant regard for due process and other fundamental freedoms;
• expand criminal liability for copyright infringement; and
• impact access to pharmaceuticals.

Amongst these and other concerns, the most worrying is the distinct lack of transparency. With unfettered access being granted to industry, it is worrying that the general public is unable to access, observe or participate in the negotiations in any meaningful way.

ACTA holds a spectre of curtailed freedom over any participating nation, particularly with respect to the freedom of expression and the right to privacy. There are many negative implications for the Australian public, ranging from the sovereignty of signatory nations to dictate their own culture and innovation policy to an expansion of criminal liability for Australian citizens.

Whilst the Australian governments speaks of openness, transparency and accountability, there seems to be very little of it with respect to the ACTA. It is imperative that all documentation regarding ACTA, including draft agreements and discussion papers are released for public assessment and discussion.

Openness in the process only strengthens democracy, and is a necessary precondition for the effective exercise of democratic rights. To know and understand the considerations and impetus for any legislative action of our government, we must be able to inquire and scrutinise all information and discussion which has formed the basis and reasoning for that action.

To that end, we have submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) for copies of such discussion papers or preparatory texts, copies of any draft agreements presented to DFAT, and have also requested detailed information as to the structure and participants of the negotiation process. In fairness, DFAT has acknowledged the requirement for transparency, and we will be attending a debriefing regarding the ACTA some time in February.

However, with only an hour dedicated to the discussion of transparency on the last day of negotiations in Guadalajara, we are not overly confident that any meaningful shift in approach will be achieved. If this lack of transparency continues, Australia should withdraw from any such negotiations where transparency with it’s citizens cannot be guaranteed.