Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

Downsizing democracy, or, do you want lies with that?

The FTA looks like a done deal: "downsizing democracy" is one apt description for it. Certainly the ALP is not taking seriously the objections of the "content creators" - the writers, media workers, artists, musicians whose long-term interests have been traded for the privelege of being sidelined by US corporations. The Government's own Research Paper on "Intellectual property rights and the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement" clearly states one anticipated outcome:

"Developments in Australia and elsewhere have made it clear that technological protection measures seem to have more to do with discriminatory pricing than genuine anti-piracy measures. The AUSFTA further reinforces anti-competitive practice in those respects. Other specific measures [...] are also problematic insofar as they enshrine and enhance anti-competitive behaviour on the part of IPR holders in Australia"

The much-anticipated Senate Report is disappointingly unreadable, largely an unfocussed whitewash that has no clear summary of findings, and whose inquiry often seems limited to accepting the opinion of Public Service bureaucrats. For example, the Local Content section of the report appears to have no clear reported outcomes, while the Copyright section of the report is labelled as a "Parliamentary Library Research Paper" and appears not to have been a distinct area of enquiry by the Senate at all. Moreover, that Paper is clearly damning:

"In several areas, the proposed implementation either goes further than AUSFTA requires or fails to take advantage of exceptions and limitations that AUSFTA allows. More generally, the [US Free Trade Agreement Implementation] Bill introduces no new mechanisms to counter-balance the more protective copyright regime, such as a broad 'fair use' exemption or stronger competition laws. The result is that, in several respects, this Bill would give Australia a more protective copyright regime than the United States. Copyright is a complex area of law and changes can produce unexpected results. As a result Australia has tended to pursue copyright law reform with wide, public consultation with stakeholders and experts. In several areas, changes proposed by this Bill conflict with the recommendations that have arisen through those processes... It seems that little or no public consultation has been involved in the preparation of this Bill."

In other words, American interest has prevailed at the expense of a local regime that is fairer and easier to maintain. Despite the obvious concern this raises, it appears the ALP is content to side with the government. The Senate Enquiry seems to actually avoid difficult issues, and clearly highlights the lack of proper consultation or impact assessment. Instead we are presented with a fair accompli that travels with indecent haste to cement our subservience to a foreign empire. The hypocrisy is naked to see: Man of Steel's response to the ALP's qualified support by way of seeking amendment to the more contentious aspects, such as Copyright and IP, is to emphasise that "we're not going to accommodate them [Labour] on something that will produce a bad law, will unsettle the existing intellectual property laws in this country" - as if the FTA itself is not going to impact severely on existing IP laws. The "conga line of suck-holes" has just gained a left wing. And the content-producers of Australia have gained nothing. That a major cultural imposition such as the FTA can be accepted as an economic trade-off without proper consultation is deeply disturbing to any ethically-minded Australian - and a clear signpost to the insatiable avarice that has replaced representation with elitism. By way of avoiding public scrutiny of this deal, Man of Steel has even admitted that headline-grabbing but arguably less important issues, such as his campaign to ban same-sex marriages, are in fact a "distraction" from more serious electoral issues, like the FTA:

"I think it would be a great pity if this issue were left hanging in an election campaign... If people who criticise me say, 'oh well, it's just a political diversion,' well I would say to them... remove the diversion by putting the law through before the election starts."

"Political diversion" is by nature corrosive of democratic process, where politicians set their own agenda for media coverage and avoid debate and close examination of more sensitive matters.

Item posted by AutoEditor at 10:20 am ::