FTA Amendments: What's the Rush?

With all the talk of FTA amendments and the haste to get them agreed, I thought that there must be a time limit on the acceptance of the agreement.

Alan Ramsay points out that there is no such thing.

"The US bill that Bush signed [this week] is HR 4759. Section 101 says, '(b) Conditions for entry into force of the agreement: At such time as the President determines that Australia has taken measures necessary to bring it into compliance with those provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect on the date on which the Agreement enters into force, the President is authorised to exchange notes with the Government of Australia providing for the entry into force, on or after [my emphasis] January 1, 2005, of the Agreement with respect to the United States.'

"I see nothing in the bill that refers to October 1 or to a 90-day period between signing the bill and entering the agreement into force.

So there's no reason whatsoever for the agreement to be signed before the coming election.

There also seems to be some uncertainty that the amendments will be effective:

An intellectual property expert at the Australian National University, Peter Drahos, said it was uncertain whether Labor's amendments would be effective.

Generic companies would still have to succeed in the courts against the might of the multibillion-dollar "big pharma" companies, renowned for their aggressive and strategic litigation, Professor Drahos said.

This doubt results because Labor's amendments appear to have been drafted on the run. Perhaps they should take more time.

What's the hurry? Let's get it right. If the election has to be fought with this in the background, but at the end of the day we end up with effective and workable law, then all the better for everyone.