The genographic project: Traditional knowledge and population genetics

This article considers the debate over patent law, informed consent, and benefit-sharing in the context of biomedical research in respect of Indigenous communities. In particular, it focuses upon three key controversies over large-scale biology projects, involving Indigenous populations. These case studies are representative of the tensions between research organisations, Indigenous communities, and funding agencies. Section two considers the aims and origins of the Human Genome Diversity Project, and criticisms levelled against the venture by Indigenous peak bodies and anti-biotechnology groups, such as the Rural Advancement Foundation International. It examines the ways in which the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) grappled with questions of patent law, informed consent, and benefit sharing in relation to population genetics. Section three focuses upon the ongoing litigation in Tilousi v. Arizona State University, and the Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University. In this matter, the Havasupai tribe from the Grand Canyon in the United States brought legal action against the Arizona State University and its researchers for using genetic data for unauthorised purposes - namely, genetic research into schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding. The litigation raises questions about informed consent, negligence, and larger matters of human rights. Section four explores the legal and ethical issues raised by the Genographic Project. It considers the aims and objectives of the venture, and the criticisms levelled against it by Indigenous communities, and anti-biotechnology groups. It examines the response of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to the Genographic Project. It charts the debate over the protection of traditional knowledge in various international fora. The conclusion recommends a number of measures to better regulate large-scale biology projects involving the participation of Indigenous communities.

The last taboo: Patenting human beings

This article considers the efforts of the Australian Law Reform Commission to clarify the meaning of section 18(2) of the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Cth): ’Human beings and the biological processes for their generation are not patentable inventions.' It provides a critique of the proposals of the Commission with respect to patent law and stem cell research. The Commission has recommended that IP Australia should develop examination guidelines to explain how the criteria for patentability apply to inventions involving stem cell technologies. It has advised the Australian Government that the practice code of the United Kingdom Patent Office (UKPO) would be a good model for such guidelines, with its distinction between totipotent and pluripotent stem cells. Arguably, though, there is a need to codify this proposal in a legislative directive, and not merely in examination guidelines. The Commission has been reluctant to take account of the ethical considerations with respect to patent law and stem cell research. There could be greater scope for such considerations, by the use of expert advisory boards, opposition proceedings and the requirement of informed consent. The Commission has put forward a number of general and specific recommendations to enhance access to patented stem cell technologies. It recommends the development of a research exemption, and the modernisation of compulsory licensing and crown use provisions. It also explores the establishment of a stem cell bank and the promulgation of guidelines by funding agencies. Such proposals to promote greater public access to stem cell research are to be welcomed.

The paradox of creative uncertainty in learning and teaching

In an ever-changing and globalised world there is a need for higher education to adapt and evolve its models of learning and teaching. The old industrial model has lost traction, and new patterns of creative engagement are required. These new models potentially increase relevancy and better equip students for the future. Although creativity is recognised as an attribute that can contribute much to the development of these pedagogies, and creativity is valued by universities as a graduate capability, some educators understandably struggle to translate this vision into practice. This paper reports on selected survey findings from a mixed methods research project which aimed to shed light on how creativity can be designed for in higher education learning and teaching settings. A social constructivist epistemology underpinned the research and data was gathered using survey and case study methods. Descriptive statistical methods and informed grounded theory were employed for the analysis reported here. The findings confirm that creativity is valued for its contribution to the development of students’ academic work, employment opportunities and life in general; however, tensions arise between individual educator’s creative pedagogical goals and the provision of institutional support for implementation of those objectives. Designing for creativity becomes, paradoxically, a matter of navigating and limiting complexity and uncertainty, while simultaneously designing for those same states or qualities.

Intellectual property and climate change: Inventing clean technologies

In the wake of the international summits in Copenhagen and Cancún, there is an urgent need to consider the role of intellectual property law in encouraging research, development, and diffusion of clean technologies to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. This book charts the patent landscapes and legal conflicts emerging in a range of fields of innovation – including renewable forms of energy, such as solar power, wind power, and geothermal energy; as well as biofuels, green chemistry, green vehicles, energy efficiency, and smart grids. As well as reviewing key international treaties, this book provides a detailed analysis of current trends in patent policy and administration in key nation states, and offers clear recommendations for law reform. It considers such options as technology transfer, compulsory licensing, public sector licensing, and patent pools; and analyses the development of Climate Innovation Centres, the Eco-Patent Commons, and environmental prizes, such as the L-Prize, the H-Prize, and the X-Prizes. This book will have particular appeal to policy-makers given its focus upon recent legislative developments and reform proposals, as well as legal practitioners by developing a better understanding of recent legal, scientific, and business developments, and how they affect their practice. Innovators, scientists and researchers will also benefit from reading this book.

Intellectual Property and Biotechnology: Biological Inventions

This book documents and evaluates the dramatic expansion of intellectual property law to accommodate various forms of biotechnology from micro-organisms, plants, and animals to human genes and stem cells. It makes a unique theoretical contribution to the controversial public debate over the commercialization of biological inventions. The author also considers the contradictions between the Supreme Court of Canada rulings in respect of the Harvard oncomouse, and genetically modified canola. He explores law, policy, and practice in both Australia and New Zealand in respect to gene patents and non-coding DNA. This study charts the rebellion against the European Union Biotechnology Directive – particularly in respect of Myriad Genetics’ BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents, and stem cell patent applications. The book also considers whether patent law will accommodate frontier technologies – such as bioinformatics, haplotype mapping, proteomics, pharmacogenomics, and nanotechnology. Intellectual Property and Biotechnology will be of prime interest to lawyers and patent attorneys, scientists and researchers, business managers and technology transfer specialists.

Intellectual property and emerging technologies: The new biology

This unique and comprehensive collection investigates the challenges posed to intellectual property by recent paradigm shifts in biology. It explores the legal ramifications of emerging technologies, such as genomics, synthetic biology, stem cell research, nanotechnology, and biodiscovery. Extensive contributions examine recent controversial court decisions in patent law – such as Bilski v. Kappos, and the litigation over Myriad’s patents in respect of BRCA1 and BRCA2 – while other papers explore sui generis fields, such as access to genetic resources, plant breeders' rights, and traditional knowledge. The collection considers the potential and the risks of the new biology for global challenges – such as access to health-care, the protection of the environment and biodiversity, climate change, and food security. It also considers Big Science projects – such as biobanks, the 1000 Genomes Project, and the Doomsday Vault. The inter-disciplinary research brings together the work of scholars from Australia, Canada, Europe, the UK and the US and involves not only legal analysis of case law and policy developments, but also historical, comparative, sociological, and ethical methodologies. Intellectual Property and Emerging Technologies will appeal to policy-makers, legal practitioners, business managers, inventors, scientists and researchers.

Mauve: How one man invented the colour that changed the world

In an essay, "The Books of Last Things", Delia Falconer discusses the emergence of a new genre in publishing - microhistories. She cites a number of recent titles in non-fiction and fiction - Longitude, Cod, Tulips, Pushkin's Button, Nathaniel's Nutmeg, Zarafa, The Surgeon of Crowthorne, The Potato, The Perfect Storm. Delia Falconer observes of this tradition: "One has the sense, reading these books, of a surprising weight, of pleasant shock. In part, it is because we are looking at things which are generally present around us, but modestly out of sight and mind - historical nitty gritty like cod, potatoes, longitudinal clocks - which the authors have thrust suddenly, like a Biblical visitation of frogs or locusts, in our face. Things like spice and buttons and clocks are generally seen to enable history on the large scale, but are not often viewed as its worthy subjects. And by the same grand logic of history, more unusual phenomena like cabinets of curiosities or glass-making or farm lore or sailors' knots are simply odd blips on its radar screen, interesting footnotes. These new books, microhistories, reverse the usual order of history, which argues from the general to the particular, in order to prove its inevitable progress. They start from the footnotes. But by reversing the process, and walking through the back door of history, you don't necessarily end up at the front of the same house." Delia Falconer speculates about the reasons for the popularity of microhistories. She concludes: "I would like to think that reading them is not simply an exercise in nostalgia, but a challenge to the present". In Mauve, Simon Garfield provides a new way of thinking and writing about the history of intellectual property. Instead of providing a grand historical narrative of intellectual property, he tells the story of a particular invention, and its exploitation. Simon Garfield relates how English chemist William Perkin accidentally discovered a way to mass-produce colour mauve in a factory. Working on a treatment for malaria in his London home laboratory, Perkin failed to produce artificial quinine. Instead he created a dark oily sludge that turned silk a beautiful light purple. The colour was unique and became the most desirable shade in the fashion houses of Paris and London. ... The book Mauve will have a number of contemporary resonances for intellectual property lawyers and academics. Simon Garfield emphasizes the difficulties inherent in commercialising an invention and managing intellectual property. He investigates the uneasy collaboration between industry and science. Simon Garfield suggests that complaints about the efficacy of patent offices are perennial. He also highlights the problems faced by courts and law-makers in accommodating new technologies within the logic of patent law. In his elegant microhistory of the colour mauve, Simon Garfield confirms the conclusion of Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently that many aspects of modern intellectual property law can only be understood through an understanding of the past: "The image of intellectual property law that developed during the 19th century and the narrative of identity which this engendered played and continue to play an important role in the way we think about and understand intellectual property law".

TPP draft reveals surgical strike on public health

On 13 November, WikiLeaks released a secret draft text of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The text reveals substantive proposals for expanded protection in respect of copyright, patent, trade mark and trade secrets law, and intellectual property enforcement.

Blame it on Rio: Biodiscovery, native title, and traditional knowledge

This article examines the legal responses to protect traditional knowledge of biodiversity in the wake of the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity. It considers the relative merits of the inter-locking regimes of contract law, environmental law, intellectual property law, and native title law. Part 1 considers the natural drug discovery industry in Australia. In particular, it looks at the operations of Amrad, Astra Zeneca R & D, and the Australian Institute of Marine Science. This section examines the key features of the draft regulations proposed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) - model contracts, informed consent, benefit-sharing, and ministerial discretion. The use of Indigenous Land Use Agreements in the context of access to genetic resources is also explored. Part 2 considers the role played by native title law in dealing with tangible and intangible property interests. The High Court decision in Western Australia v Ward considers the relationship between native title rights and cultural knowledge. The Federal Court case of Neowarra v Western Australia provides an intriguing gloss on this High Court decision. Part 3 looks at whether traditional knowledge of biodiversity can be protected under intellectual property law. It focuses upon reforms such as Senator Aden Ridgeway's proposed amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth), and the push to make disclosure of origin a requirement of patent law.

Plant Breeder's Rights: An Australian commentary December 2004

The aim of this manual is to provide a practical guide to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth). It is a resource of information about the legislation, its administration, and its operation. This commentary is intended to assist plant breeders, scientific researchers, and business managers who want to make a more effective use of the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth) in the management and commercialisation of their intellectual property rights. It is also designed to enhance the understanding of the legislation among lawyers, patent attorneys, qualified persons, and policy-makers.

Owning omega-3: Monsanto and the invention of meat

In August of 2010, Anna Salleh of the Science Unit of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation broke a story about Monsanto seeking to patent the enhancement of meat, including omega-3 fatty acids: ‘Enhanced port is sparking debate over the ethics of placing patents on food. Patent applications covering the enhancement of meat, including pork with omega-3 fatty acids, are stimulating debate over the ethics and legalities of claiming intellectual property over food. Monsanto has filed patents that cover the feeding of animals soybeans, which have been genetically modified by the company to contain stearidonic acid (SDA), a plant-derived omega-3 fatty acid... Omega-3s have been linked to improved cardiovascular health and there are many companies engineering them into foodstuffs. But the new patent applications have touched a raw nerve among those who see them as an attempt by the company to exert control over the food chain.’ This article providers a critical evaluation of the controversy of Monsanto’s patent applications, and the larger issues over patenting food. It first considers the patent portfolio of Monsanto; the nature of the patent claims; and the examination of the claims by patent examiners. Second, it examines the withdrawal and revision of the patent claims by Monsanto in the wake of criticism by patent authorities and the public disquiet over the controversial application. Third, this article considers the larger policy issues raised by Monsanto’s patent applications – including the patenting of plants, animals, and foodstuffs. There is also a consideration of the impact of patents upon the administration of health-care, competition, and research.

Patenting free energy: The BlackLight litigation and the hydrogen economy

Legal Context In the wake of the Copenhagen Accord 2009 and the Cancun Agreements 2010, a number of patent offices have introduced fast-track mechanisms to encourage patent applications in relation to clean technologies - such as those pertaining to hydrogen. However, patent offices will be under increasing pressure to ensure that the granted patents satisfy the requisite patent thresholds, as well as to identify and reject cases of fraud, hoaxes, scams, and swindles. Key Points This article examines the BlackLight litigation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Patent Office, and considers how patent offices and courts deal with patent applications in respect of clean energy and perpetual motion machines. Practical Significance The capacity of patent offices to grant sound and reliable patents is critical to the credibility of the patent system, particularly in the context of the current focus upon promoting clean technologies.

Trick or treaty?: The Australian debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The secretive 2011 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known in short by the catchy acronym ACTA – is a controversial trade pact designed to provide for stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The preamble to the treaty reads like pulp fiction – it raises moral panics about piracy, counterfeiting, organised crime, and border security. The agreement contains provisions on civil remedies and criminal offences; copyright law and trademark law; the regulation of the digital environment; and border measures. Memorably, Susan Sell called the international treaty a TRIPS Double-Plus Agreement, because its obligations far exceed those of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement 1994, and TRIPS-Plus Agreements, such as the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004. ACTA lacks the language of other international intellectual property agreements, which emphasise the need to balance the protection of intellectual property owners with the wider public interest in access to medicines, human development, and transfer of knowledge and technology. In Australia, there was much controversy both about the form and the substance of ACTA. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a partisan supporter of the agreement, a wide range of stakeholders were openly critical. After holding hearings and taking note of the position of the European Parliament and the controversy in the United States, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the Australian Parliament recommended the deferral of ratification of ACTA. This was striking as representatives of all the main parties agreed on the recommendation. The committee was concerned about the lack of transparency, due process, public participation, and substantive analysis of the treaty. There were also reservations about the ambiguity of the treaty text, and its potential implications for the digital economy, innovation and competition, plain packaging of tobacco products, and access to essential medicines. The treaty has provoked much soul-searching as to whether the Trick or Treaty reforms on the international treaty-making process in Australia have been compromised or undermined. Although ACTA stalled in the Australian Parliament, the debate over it is yet to conclude. There have been concerns in Australia and elsewhere that ACTA will be revived as a ‘zombie agreement’. Indeed, in March 2013, the Canadian government introduced a bill to ensure compliance with ACTA. Will it be also resurrected in Australia? Has it already been revived? There are three possibilities. First, the Australian government passed enhanced remedies with respect to piracy, counterfeiting and border measures in a separate piece of legislation – the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). Second, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade remains supportive of ACTA. It is possible, after further analysis, that the next Australian Parliament – to be elected in September 2013 – will ratify the treaty. Third, Australia is involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. The government has argued that ACTA should be a template for the Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The United States Trade Representative would prefer a regime even stronger than ACTA. This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; 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. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Fifth, there was significant debate about the impact of ACTA on pharmaceutical drugs, access to essential medicines and health-care. Sixth, there was concern over the lobbying by tobacco industries for ACTA – particularly given Australia’s leadership on tobacco control and the plain packaging of tobacco products. Seventh, there were concerns about the operation of border measures in ACTA. Eighth, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was concerned about the jurisdiction of the ACTA Committee, and the treaty’s protean nature. Finally, the chapter raises fundamental issues about the relationship between the executive and the Australian Parliament with respect to treaty-making. There is a need to reconsider the efficacy of the Trick or Treaty reforms passed by the Australian Parliament in the 1990s.

Rio+ 20: The future we want or greenwash?

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development featured a fractious debate over intellectual property and the environment. Not only was there heated debate about patent law, technology transfer, and sustainable development, there was also a debate about sustainable public procurement, eco-labelling, accountable advertising, and greenwashing.

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.