An epistemic community as influencer and implementer in local government accounting in Australia

This paper adopts an epistemic community framework to explicate the dual role of epistemic communities as influencers of accounting policy within regulatory space and as implementers who effect change within the domain of accounting. The context is the adoption and implementation of fair value accounting within local government in New South Wales (NSW). The roles and functions of Australian local government are extensive, and include the development and maintenance of infrastructure, provision of recreational facilities, certain health and community services, buildings, cultural facilities, and in some cases, water and sewerage (Australian Local Government Association, 2009). The NSW state Department of Local Government (DLG) is responsible for legislation and policy development to ensure that local councils are able to deliver ‘quality services to their communities in a sustainable manner’ (DLG, 2008c). These local councils receive revenue from various sources including property rates, government grants and user-pays service provision. In July 2006 the DLG issued Circular 06-453 to councils (DLG, 2006c), mandating the staged adoption of fair value measurement of infrastructure assets. This directive followed the policy of NSW State Treasury (NSW Treasury, 2007),4 and an independent inquiry into the financial sustainability of local councils (LGSA, 2006). It was an attempt to resolve the inconsistency in public sector asset valuation in NSW Local Governments, and to provide greater usefulness and comparability of financial statements.5 The focus of this study is the mobilization of accounting change by the DLG within this wider political context. When a regulatory problem arises, those with political power seek advice from professionals with relevant skill and expertise (Potter, 2005). This paper explores the way in which professionals diffuse accounting ‘problems’ and the associated accounting solutions ‘across time and space’ (Potter, 2005, p. 277). The DLG’s fair value accounting policy emanated from a ‘regulatory space’ (Hancher and Moran, 1989)6 as a result of negotiations between many parties, including accounting and finance professionals. Operating within the local government sector, these professionals were identified by the DLG as being capable of providing helpful input. They were also responsible for the implementation of the new olicy within local councils. Accordingly they have been dentified as an pistemic community with the ability to ranslate regulatory power by changing he domain of ccounting (Potter, 2005, p. 278).7 The paper is organised as follows. The background to the LG’s decision to require the introduction of fair value accounting for infrastructure assets is explored. Following this, the method of the study is described, and the epistemic community framework outlined. In the next sections, evidence of the influencing and implementing roles of epistemic groups is provided. Finally, conclusions are drawn about the significance of these groups both within regulatory space in developing accounting regulation, and in embedding change within the domain of accounting.

Comparing cost uplift in infrastructure delivery methods : a case based approach

In 2009 the Australian Federal and State governments are expected to have spent some AU$30 billion procuring infrastructure projects. For governments with finite resources but many competing projects, formal capital rationing is achieved through use of Business Cases. These Business cases articulate the merits of investing in particular projects along with the estimated costs and risks of each project. Despite the sheer size and impact of infrastructure projects, there is very little research in Australia, or internationally, on the performance of these projects against Business Case assumptions when the decision to invest is made. If such assumptions (particularly cost assumptions) are not met, then there is serious potential for the misallocation of Australia’s finite financial resources. This research addresses this important gap in the literature by using combined quantitative and qualitative research methods, to examine the actual performance of 14 major Australian government infrastructure projects. The research findings are controversial as they challenge widely held perceptions of the effectiveness of certain infrastructure delivery practices. Despite this controversy, the research has had a significant impact on the field and has been described as ‘outstanding’ and ‘definitive’ (Alliancing Association of Australasia), "one of the first of its kind" (Infrastructure Partnerships of Australia) and "making a critical difference to infrastructure procurement" (Victorian Department of Treasury). The implications for practice of the research have been profound and included the withdrawal by Government of various infrastructure procurement guidelines, the formulation of new infrastructure policies by several state governments and the preparation of new infrastructure guidelines that substantially reflect the research findings. Building on the practical research, a more rigorous academic investigation focussed on the comparative cost uplift of various project delivery strategies was submitted to Australia’s premier academic management conference, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Annual Conference. This paper has been accepted for the 2010 ANZAM National Conference following a process of double blind peer review with reviewers rating the paper’s overall contribution as "Excellent" and "Good".

Not for profit income tax exemption : is there a hole in the bucket, dear Henry?

Australia’s Future Tax System Review, headed by the then head of the Australian Treasury, and the Productivity Commission’s Research Report on the not for profit sector, both examined the state of tax concessions to Australia’s not for profit sector in the light of the High Court’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Word Investments Ltd. Despite being unable to quantify with any certainty the pre- or post-Word Investments cost of the tax concessions, both Reports indicated their support for continuation of the income tax exemption. However, the government acted in the 2011 Budget to target the not for profit income tax concessions more precisely, mainly on competitive neutrality grounds. This article examines the income tax exemption by applying the five taxation design principles, proposed in the Australia’s Future Tax System Review, for assessing tax expenditure. The conclusion is that the exemptions can be justified and, further, that a rationale for the exemption can be consistent with the reasoning in the Word Investments case.

The implementation of social and economic policy through the tax regime : a review of Australia's tax expenditures program

Each year the Australian Federal Treasury releases its Tax Expenditures Statement providing details of concessions, benefits, and incentives delivered through the tax regime to Australian taxpayers. The current Tax Expenditures Statement, released on 25 January 2008, lists approximately 300 tax expenditures and reports on the estimated pecuniary value in terms of revenue foregone, estimated to be a total of $50.12 billion for the 2006-07 financial year. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditures Statement, and despite the recurring fiscal impact, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditures program. This is despite tax expenditures often being seen as an alternative to direct expenditures with similar impact on the Federal budget. The object of tax expenditures is to provide government assistance and meet government objectives, and, as such, tax expenditures are departures from the revenue raising aspect of the tax regime. Within this context, this article examines the fundamental concept of tax expenditures as contrasted with direct expenditures and considers the role they play in the current tax regime.

Tax expenditures in Australia : the elevation from ‘disguised’ expenditures to architectural pillars of the 21st century

The current Australian Treasury approach to tax expenditures management and reporting is a culmination of 36 years of Government and Parliamentary reviews and reports. The most notable outcome of these reviews and reports is the publication of the annual tax expenditures statement, which commenced in 1986. Since its inception, the Australian annual tax expenditures statements have themselves been the subject of review. Most recently, the Australian National Audit Office has undertaken a performance audit in the Department of the Treasury and released its report entitled Preparation of the Tax Expenditures Statement. In addition to this 2008 report, a second recent opportunity to consider tax expenditures within the Australian tax regime has arisen. The Australian tax system is currently undergoing a comprehensive and broad review with the terms of reference requiring a consideration of all relevant tax expenditures. While the recommendations of the Australian National Audit Office are not novel, and it is not unusual for a broader review to consider the role of tax expenditures within the Australian tax system, both the recommendations of the Australian National Audit Office and the views of the current Review Panel take on a renewed sense of importance given the proliferation of tax expenditures in Australia. Tax expenditures, in terms of number and pecuniary value, have increased significantly in Australia in recent years. The latest Tax Expenditures Statement lists around 320 tax expenditures with the pecuniary value of those expenditures estimated at $73.69 billion or 7.1% of GDP. The largest category of tax expenditures listed in the 2008 Tax Expenditures Statement, totalling $29.23 billion, relate to concessions aimed at retirement savings.

An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure

Each financial year concessions, benefits and incentives are delivered to taxpayers via the tax system. These concessions, benefits and incentives, referred to as tax expenditure, differ from direct expenditure because of the recurring fiscal impact without regular scrutiny through the federal budget process. There are approximately 270 different tax expenditures existing within the current tax regime with total measured tax expenditures in the 2005-06 financial year estimated to be around $42.1 billion, increasing to $52.7 billion by 2009-10. Each year, new tax expenditures are introduced, while existing tax expenditures are modified and deleted. In recognition of some of the problems associated with tax expenditure, a Tax Expenditure Statement, as required by the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1988, is produced annually by the Australian Federal Treasury. The Statement details the various expenditures and measures in the form of concessions, benefits and incentives provided to taxpayers by the Australian Government and calculates the tax expenditure in terms of revenue forgone. A similar approach to reporting tax expenditure, with such a report being a legal requirement, is followed by most OECD countries. The current Tax Expenditure Statement lists 270 tax expenditures and where it is able to, reports on the estimated pecuniary value of those expenditures. Apart from the annual Tax Expenditure Statement, there is very little other scrutiny of Australia’s Federal tax expenditure program. While there has been various academic analysis of tax expenditure in Australia, when compared to the North American literature, it is suggested that the Australian literature is still in its infancy. In fact, one academic author who has contributed to tax expenditure analysis recently noted that there is ‘remarkably little secondary literature which deals at any length with tax expenditures in the Australian context.’ Given this perceived gap in the secondary literature, this paper examines fundamental concept of tax expenditure and considers the role it plays in to the current tax regime as a whole, along with the effects of the introduction of new tax expenditures. In doing so, tax expenditure is contrasted with direct expenditure. An analysis of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure is already a sophisticated and comprehensive body of work stemming from the US over the last three decades. As such, the title of this paper is rather misleading. However, given the lack of analysis in Australia, it is appropriate that this paper undertakes a consideration of tax expenditure versus direct expenditure in an Australian context. Given this proposition, rather than purport to undertake a comprehensive analysis of tax expenditure which has already been done, this paper discusses the substantive considerations of any such analysis to enable further investigation into the tax expenditure regime both as a whole and into individual tax expenditure initiatives. While none of the propositions in this paper are new in a ‘tax expenditure analysis’ sense, this debate is a relatively new contribution to the Australian literature on the tax policy. Before the issues relating to tax expenditure can be determined, it is necessary to consider what is meant by ‘tax expenditure’. As such, part two if this paper defines ‘tax expenditure’. Part three determines the framework in which tax expenditure can be analysed. It is suggested that an analysis of tax expenditure must be evaluated within the framework of the design criteria of an income tax system with the key features of equity, efficiency, and simplicity. Tax expenditure analysis can then be applied to deviations from the ideal tax base. Once it is established what is meant by tax expenditure and the framework for evaluation is determined, it is possible to establish the substantive issues to be evaluated. This paper suggests that there are four broad areas worthy of investigation; economic efficiency, administrative efficiency, whether tax expenditure initiatives achieve their policy intent, and the impact on stakeholders. Given these areas of investigation, part four of this paper considers the issues relating to the economic efficiency of the tax expenditure regime, in particular, the effect on resource allocation, incentives for taxpayer behaviour and distortions created by tax expenditures. Part five examines the notion of administrative efficiency in light of the fact that most tax expenditures could simply be delivered as direct expenditures. Part six explores the notion of policy intent and considers the two questions that need to be asked; whether any tax expenditure initiative reaches its target group and whether the financial incentives are appropriate. Part seven examines the impact on stakeholders. Finally, part eight considers the future of tax expenditure analysis in Australia.

Art unions legislation in Queensland

In Queensland, the legislation governing the conduct of art unions such as bingo, raffles and lucky envelopes is the Art Unions Act 1992 (ΑAct≅). The Act is administered by the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation (ΑQOGR≅) which is part of the Queensland Treasury portfolio. The Act and other legislation such as the Criminal Code, Vagrants Gaming and Other Offences Act, generally makes it unlawful for a person to conduct art unions unless they are authorised to do so. The Art Unions Act allows Αeligible≅ nonprofit associations such as charities, schools, sporting and community groups to raise funds for their stated objects. Art unions were legalised in the early part of this century primarily to assist charities and other approved associations to raise funds for worthwhile causes. This principle is continued in the 1992 Act. The Queensland art union industry had a turnover of over$190M in 1996/97 and our Queensland art unions continue to attract not just sales from Queensland residents but also interstate and overseas buyers. Art unions continue to be an attractive form of fundraising for many nonprofit associations.

The inherent international tax regime and its constraints on Australia's sovereignty

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia’s future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process. On 16 March 2012, an Exposure Draft and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum outlining the proposed amendments to implement the first stage of the transfer pricing reforms were released. Within the proposed changes is the explicit embedding of the use of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital and Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations to help determine the arm’s length price. Does this mean that Australia engages in an international tax regime?

Australia's adoption of an international tax regime : to engage or not to engage?

On 1 November 2011 the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, the Honourable Bill Shorten MP, announced that Australia would be undertaking a reform of the ‘transfer pricing rules in the income tax law and Australia's future tax treaties to bring them into line with international best practice, improving the integrity and efficiency of the tax system.’ Mr Shorten stated that the reason for the reform was that ‘recent court decisions suggest our existing transfer pricing rules may be interpreted in a way that is out-of-kilter with international norms.’ Further, he stated that ‘the Government has asked the Treasury to review how the transfer pricing rules can be improved, including but not limited to how to be more in line with international best practice.’ He urged all interested parties to participate in this consultation process.

Who claims gifts as a tax deduction? An examination of tax deductible gift statistics

Many donors, particularly those contemplating a substantial donation, consider whether their donation will be deductible from their taxable income. This motivation is not lost on fundraisers who conduct appeals before the end of the taxation year to capitalise on such desires. The motivation is also not lost on Treasury analysts who perceive the tax deduction as “lost” revenue and wonder if the loss is “efficient” in economic terms. Would it be more efficient for the government to give grants to deserving organisations, rather than permitting donor directed gifts? Better still, what about contracts that lock in the use of the money for a government priority? What place does tax deduction play in influencing a donor to give? Does the size of the gift bear any relationship to the size of the tax deduction? Could an increased level of donations take up an increasing shortfall in government welfare and community infrastructure spending? Despite these questions being asked regularly, little has been rigorously established about the effect of taxation deductions on a donor’s gifts.

Link discovery for Chinese/English cross-language web information retrieval

Nowadays people heavily rely on the Internet for information and knowledge. Wikipedia is an online multilingual encyclopaedia that contains a very large number of detailed articles covering most written languages. It is often considered to be a treasury of human knowledge. It includes extensive hypertext links between documents of the same language for easy navigation. However, the pages in different languages are rarely cross-linked except for direct equivalent pages on the same subject in different languages. This could pose serious difficulties to users seeking information or knowledge from different lingual sources, or where there is no equivalent page in one language or another. In this thesis, a new information retrieval task—cross-lingual link discovery (CLLD) is proposed to tackle the problem of the lack of cross-lingual anchored links in a knowledge base such as Wikipedia. In contrast to traditional information retrieval tasks, cross language link discovery algorithms actively recommend a set of meaningful anchors in a source document and establish links to documents in an alternative language. In other words, cross-lingual link discovery is a way of automatically finding hypertext links between documents in different languages, which is particularly helpful for knowledge discovery in different language domains. This study is specifically focused on Chinese / English link discovery (C/ELD). Chinese / English link discovery is a special case of cross-lingual link discovery task. It involves tasks including natural language processing (NLP), cross-lingual information retrieval (CLIR) and cross-lingual link discovery. To justify the effectiveness of CLLD, a standard evaluation framework is also proposed. The evaluation framework includes topics, document collections, a gold standard dataset, evaluation metrics, and toolkits for run pooling, link assessment and system evaluation. With the evaluation framework, performance of CLLD approaches and systems can be quantified. This thesis contributes to the research on natural language processing and cross-lingual information retrieval in CLLD: 1) a new simple, but effective Chinese segmentation method, n-gram mutual information, is presented for determining the boundaries of Chinese text; 2) a voting mechanism of name entity translation is demonstrated for achieving a high precision of English / Chinese machine translation; 3) a link mining approach that mines the existing link structure for anchor probabilities achieves encouraging results in suggesting cross-lingual Chinese / English links in Wikipedia. This approach was examined in the experiments for better, automatic generation of cross-lingual links that were carried out as part of the study. The overall major contribution of this thesis is the provision of a standard evaluation framework for cross-lingual link discovery research. It is important in CLLD evaluation to have this framework which helps in benchmarking the performance of various CLLD systems and in identifying good CLLD realisation approaches. The evaluation methods and the evaluation framework described in this thesis have been utilised to quantify the system performance in the NTCIR-9 Crosslink task which is the first information retrieval track of this kind.

Leveraging R&D Investment for the Australian Built Environment : Industry Report

The overarching goal of this project is to better match funding strategies to industry needs to maximise the benefits of R&D to Australia’s infrastructure and building industry. Project partners are: Queensland Department of Public Works; Queensland Transport and Main Roads; Western Australian Department of Treasury and Finance; John Holland; Queensland University of Technology; Swinburne University of Technology; and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (Prof Göran Roos). This project has been endorsed by the Australian Built Environment Industry Innovation Council (BEIIC) with Council member Prof Catherin Bull serving on this project’s Steering Committee. This project seeks to: (i) maximise the value of R&D investment in this sector through improved understanding of future industry research needs; and (ii) address the perceived problem of a disproportionately low R&D investment in this sector, relative to the size and national importance of the sector. This research will develop new theory built on open innovation, dynamic capabilities and absorptive capacity theories in the context of strategic foresighting and roadmapping activities. Four project phases have been designed to address this research: 1: Audit and analysis of R&D investment in the Australian built environment since 1990 - access publically available data relating to R&D investments across Australia from public and private organisations to understand past trends. 2: Examine diffusion mechanisms of research and innovation and its impact on public and private organisations – investigate specific R&D investments to determine the process of realising research support, direction-setting, project engagement, impacts and pathways to adoption. 3: Develop a strategic roadmap for the future of this critical Australian industry - assess the likely future landscapes that R&D investment will both respond to and anticipate. 4: Develop policy to maximise the value of R&D investments to public and private organisations – through translating project learnings into policy guidelines.

The increasing cost of healthy food

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland. METHODS: Analysis of five cross-sectional surveys (1998, 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2006) describes changes over time. Eighty-nine stores in five remoteness categories were surveyed during May 2006. For the first time a sampling framework based on randomisation of towns throughout the state was applied and the survey was conducted by Queensland Treasury. RESULTS: Compared with the costs in major cities, in 2006 the mean cost of the HFAB was $107.81 (24.2%) higher in very remote stores in Queensland, but $145.57 (32.6%) higher in stores more than 2,000 kilometres from Brisbane. Over six years the cost of the HFAB has increased by around 50% ($148.87) across Queensland and, where data was available, by more than the cost of less healthy alternatives. The Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane increased by 32.5% over the same period. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Australians, no matter where they live, need access to affordable, healthy food. Issues of food security in the face of rising food costs are of concern particularly in the current global economic downturn. There is an urgent need to nationally monitor, but also sustainably address the factors affecting the price of healthy foods, particularly for vulnerable groups who suffer a disproportionate burden of poor health.

Standard business reporting in Australia : efficiency, effectiveness, or both?

The benefits of using eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) as a business reporting standard have been widely canvassed in the extant literature, in particular, as the enabling technology for standard business reporting tools. One of the key benefits noted is the ability of standard business reporting to create significant efficiencies in the regulatory reporting process. Efficiency-driven cost reductions are highly desirable by data and report producers. However, they may not have the same potential to create long-term firm value as improved effectiveness of decision making. This study assesses the perceptions of Australian business stakeholders in relation to the benefits of the Australian standard business reporting instantiation (SBR) for financial reporting. These perceptions were drawn from interviews of persons knowledgeable in XBRL-based standard business reporting and submissions to Treasury relative to SBR reporting options. The combination of interviews and submissions permit insights into the views of various groups of stakeholders in relation to the potential benefits. In line with predictions based on a transaction-cost economics perspective, interviewees who primarily came from a data and report-producer background mentioned benefits that centre largely on asset specificity and efficiency. The interviewees who principally came from a data and report-consumer background mentioned benefits that centre on reducing decision-making uncertainty and decision-making effectiveness. The data and report consumers also took a broader view of the benefits of SBR to the financial reporting supply chain. Our research suggests that advocates of SBR have successfully promoted its efficiency benefits to potential users. However, the effectiveness benefits of SBR, for example, the decision-making benefits offered to investors via standardised reports, while becoming more broadly acknowledged, remain not a priority for all stakeholders.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.