The Politics Of Window Dressing

The ALP has played an interesting card in the FTA debate. Yesterday the Labor caucus voted overwhelmingly to support the FTA. The FTA is of course a deal or no deal affair. Either it’s accepted or it’s not.

Having done that, Labor then introduced two amendments to the enabling legislation necessary to pass the FTA. The first – which the government accepted – looks to have the effect of making local media content compliance monitoring the responsibility of Parliament rather than the ABA. It doesn’t in any way affect the FTA provisions in this area.

The second – which the government currently rejects – seeks to introduce specific legal provision aimed at stopping pharmaceutical drug patent “evergreening.” Evergreening is hitherto unknown in Australia but it’s a not uncommon practice in the US when highly profitable drugs are about to go off patent. Potential generic applicants line up to do cheaper “knock-offs” while the patent holder deploys an array of blocking manoeuvres in order to extend it’s price and market share control. These can include setting up bogus generic front companies, launching pre-emptive lawsuits etc. The FTA requires that anyone seeking to register an application for an existing expiring pharmaceutical patent with the drug regulatory agency must be identified to the existing patent-holder. Many people – including me – see this as a potential open door to evergreening. Labor’s initiative can be read in one sense as a means of providing enhanced overview and control in this area. Our existing trade practices environment should, one assumes, be capable of responding to shonky practices in this area but would it?

Whatever, Labor’s aim here is primarily political rather than policy-driven and it’s an interesting strategy. A quick dip into the Fairfax online fora reveals that most posters seem to be under the impression that Latham has moved to amend the FTA to make it “fairer.” He hasn’t. The FTA is untouched. Others see it as a nitpicking delaying tactic.

Does Howard resist the remaining amendment and thus make the FTA the campaign centrepiece? Why block an amendment aimed at containing the potential for a practice that Howard himself seems to be saying, should be discouraged? His line seems to be that we don’t need a law because there’s sufficient legal scope to deal with such matters under existing legislation; which isn’t an interplanetary journey away from the (lack of) substantive rationale for the amendment he’s already accepted.

I don’t see this playing out for long, but it will be interesting to see which way it goes.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Guido
2022 years ago

Always interesting to have your lawyer prespective Geoff on an issue that it is pretty baffling for the majority of people.

Really, anyone who has ever attended either an ALP branch meeting, or a State Conference would have seen this tactic played again and again. when you want to kill a motion that has some support you move an amendment which sound reasonable but may be inacceptable to the mover. This may swing enough votes against the original motion to defeat it.

Anyway, sorry I digress. Terry Lane discussed the FTA and its possible effects on the PBS and has listed a couple of documents on his site.

This one is from the Medical Journal of Australia While this one is from the Parliamentary Library. Worth a read.

Rex
Rex
2022 years ago

I agree Geoff it is an interesting play. I feel Latham will have the upper hand with this one, because as I’ve said elsewhere, Howard will look churlish if he doen’t concede this minor ammendment to Labor. To dig in and potentially scupper the whole deal would appear way out of proportion to the concession Howard would have to make.

Latham can take Howard to the brink on this one.

Geoff Honnor
Geoff Honnor
2022 years ago

Guido, I don’t whether I’m flattered or not but it’s Ken who’s the lawyerly one on this blog – I’m normally the gossip columnist :)

Guido
2022 years ago

Whoops sorry Geoff!

Homer Paxton
Homer Paxton
2022 years ago

The interesting thing from my perspective is if the PBS was not negotiatiable why was it not removed from the treaty?

I say this as a person who does not support the PBS but benefits from it.

trackback
2022 years ago

FTA mutates into political football

The FTA battle has become a brazen display of parliamentary kung fu, incomprehensible to outsiders and unconvincing without the sound effects. Since Chris Sheil is a mainlining political junkie, his site has carried the emotional ups and downs of the…

trackback
2022 years ago

A good week for Ozplogistan

I got interviewed about blogging again today, this time for Internet.au and it was a good time to talk about blogging. This has been one of the best weeks I’ve seen in Ozplogistan. Bloggers have provided blanket coverage of…