Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 14:59:43 +1000
To: cmletters@qnp.newsltd.com.au
From: Global Web Builders <gwb@gwb.com.au
Subject: Att: Des Houghton - The MAI is no "conspiracy theory"
Cc: gwb@gwb.com.au
Author: Scott Balson.
Scott Balson is the web master for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and carries extensive on-line research on international treaties like the MAI and FSIA (http://www.gwb.com.au/mai.html).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the article ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (Courier 21/03) national affairs editor Peter Charlton ridicules valid concerns about the multilateral agreement on investment (MAI).
Charlton reveals his own political bias by referring to the former High Court Chief Justice, Sir Anthony Mason’s, concerns about MAI without any negative slant to his good name or character, but then in a classic case of ‘perpetuating the myth’ calls the self-same concerns raised by Pauline Hanson as those of an ‘ignorant, ill-educated person with a political barrow to push’.
The quickest method to expose the inadequate research behind Charlton’s article is to compare the MAI with the FSIA. Both are acronyms for international treaties involving Australia. The FSIA stands for the ‘Financial Services Industry Agreement’ unlike the MAI it is a ‘done deal’.
Over the past few years hundreds of international treaties have been simply ratified by Australia’s Governor General. Despite the impact that treaties like the FSIA have on our country and our children’s future they are rarely, if ever, debated.
Unlike the MAI with its initial 20 year term the FSIA is a treaty without an expiry date. It is a treaty which has been used as the tool by which foreign investors ‘legitimately acquire’ Australia’s banking industry. It was first signed by Australia in 1995 and follows the deregulation of the banking industry by Paul Keating in 1985. Despite extensive research I have been unable to find a copy of the FSIA agreement - the only reference (on the World Trade Organisation Web) being to clauses which impact directly on Australia’s banking industry.
In 1995 the ALP’s Minister for Trade, Bob McMullins, described the FSIA thus, ‘The financial services agreement will directly benefit Australian banks, insurance companies and securities traders.’
In December 1997 a revised FSIA was signed under our current Coalition which includes the following new clause as outlined on the WTO’s web site:
‘Eliminates a prohibition on the acquisition of control of any of Australia's four main banks. Also eliminates a measure which prohibits banks (resident or non-resident) from holding shares in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) and other entities from holding more than five percent of its issued share capital;’
Through the FSIA, the rules have changed for the CBA without anyone taking the time to inform the Australian public.
The ripple effect of the FSIA has already been felt by some 40,000 ex-bank employees around Australia and rural shires like Kilkivan who no longer have a bank.
Today, Austrade tells us, 86% of our banking industry is foreign owned. If you look up ANZ’s top 20 shareholders you will find that Chase Manhattan Nominees is its biggest shareholder with 11.6% of the company. ANZ is laying off 1,700 Australian staff this year and closing rural branches.
Yet the FSIA was never debated by Parliament, it was never put under the spotlight by a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Quite simply it was Pauline Hanson whose media clout drew the attention of Australia to the MAI in January this year - resulting in this development being forced on an unwilling Parliament.
The travesty of international treaties is the simple cause and effect. Historically the cause is never debated openly but the adverse effect is felt by Australians who have seen their standard of living dramatically deteriorate under consecutive Coalition and Labor governments - by allowing these secret treaties to proceed.
Charlton’s report is centered on the mistaken belief that the MAI has always been open to public scrutiny. Let me assure you the MAI document only appeared on the OECD web site for the first time, because of political pressure, in February this year - more than two years after negotiations began.
The veil of secrecy that envelops this agreement should be of concern to all Australians as exclusions, referred to by Charlton, will be wound back or cancelled under the current MAI draft agreement while no new exclusions requested by a signatory country will be entertained. With the incredible changes taking place in technology today, such as digital TV, how could we be so stupid to agree to this?
Telstra will be in the midst of these technology changes and, like the CBA, will be a prime target for foreign takeover as the MAI, once signed, will sooner rather than later invalidate any government restrictions on foreign ownership in our communication giant.
The MAI will allow multinationals, like McDonalds (the fastfood chain), to take any level of government in this country to an international court if they believe that they are being discriminated against. In a recent pre-MAI example McDonalds took the Port Douglas shire, with just 3,000 ratepayers, to an Australian court because the council would not allow Big Mac to breach its council regulation by erecting a large golden arches sign. How could the shire afford to defend itself in an international forum against this financial giant?
Consider how multinational oil companies, right now, are treating their franchisees. We are fools if we think they would be any different under the MAI.
Your readers need to consider the impact of secret international treaties on our living standards which have been undermined in the last twenty years with some 5,000,000 Australians now reportedly living below the poverty line.
I am honoured to be associated with Pauline Hanson and One Nation - a party that is tackling issues affecting all Australians. Issues that the major parties and career politicians have continually failed to address. Pauline’s views on foreign investment are quite simple and practical - foreign investment does not have to mean foreign ownership.