Essay Question 1 

On 31 August 2012 it was announced by the Federal treasurer Wayne Swan that he'd approved the proposed sale of Cubbie Group. Cubbie Group is reportedly the largest water license holder and commercial agricultural operation on the Murray-Darling Basin, with a cotton growing enterprise that spans two main properties located near Dirranbandi and St George in south-west Queensland, covering 93,000 hectares. The announcement followed advice by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), which 

The approval was given to a consortium comprising Chinese textile company (Shandong RuYi Scientific & Technological Group) and Australian-owned wool and grain marketing company (Lempriere Group). Initially, the Consortium would be 80 per cent owned by RuYi and 20 per cent by Lempriere, with an undertaking said to be given by RuYi to 

reduce its stake to 51 per cent within three years. 
Chinese companies - both private and state-owned - are reported to have invested over $3 billion in Australia in 2011, an 86 per cent increase from 2010. Cubbie Group has been listed for sale since it was placed into voluntary administration in October 2009, following significant financial difficulties. The potential sale of Cubbie Group to the RuYi-led consortium has thus been applauded as reducing uncertainty, creating jobs and supporting economic activity in the Dirranbandi and St George region. Despite the FIRB approval, however, concerns have been raised in the media about important environmental assets being "flogged off" to a foreign company, and questions posed over the Chinese company's ultimate ownership. These views reflect a wider concern about -selling off the farm" and whether this is in the long term national interests.

"The Australian government's policy towards foreign direct investment, as reflected in the FIRB approval for the Cubbie Group sale, diminishes the attractiveness of Australia for foreign direct investors, but safeguards the national interests in the short and long term, and creates opportunities for local firms and industry". Discuss 

Essay Question 2 

On 17-19 April 2012 the High Court of Australia heard challenges by several tobacco companies (British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco and Philip Morris) to the validity of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. The new laws will require cigarettes to be sold in olive green packs without trademarks and with graphic health warnings. The companies argued the Government was trying to acquire their intellectual property, including trademarks, without proper compensation, while the Government argued that it was only trying to regulate what appears on the boxes, and was not acquiring any trademarks. On 15 August 2012 the High Court ruled in the Government's favour, with the full decision yet to be made available. This decision cleared the way for the plain packets to be on the shelves on 1 December 2012. 

The decision has been hailed by many as a "great victory for public health" and an endorsement of the power of public health law. It is of great interest to a number of other countries - including the UK and New Zealand - considering similar laws. The dispute over plain packaging is not, however, considered finally resolved. In advance of the High Court ruling, on 13 March 2012, Ukraine requested consultations through the World Trade Organization with Australia, challenging Australia's 

examines proposals by foreign persons to invest in Australia and makes 
recommendations to the Treasurer on those subject to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 
1975 and Australia's foreign investment policy. 

Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the implementing Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations 2011 breaches Australia's commitments under global trade rules. More specifically, it is claimed that Australia's measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994. Honduras and Dominican Republic - major tobacco growing countries -- have joined the complaint, with a number of other countries (e.g. Guatemala, Norway, Sweden Brazil, Canada, European Union, Nicaragua, Uruguay) taking a keen interest. Legal opinion is divided on the likely success of a challenge through the WTO, or through other international bodies. 

What are the likely consequences for key local and international stakeholders in the Australian tobacco plain packaging legislation if an international challenge of the Australian legislation is unsuccessful? 

Essay Question 3 

Trade liberalisation is typically associated with pressure from corporate interests for less regulation in most areas of the economy. In contrast, intellectual property works in the opposite direction. As explained by Mike Willis, an intellectual property law consultant, (http://apo.org.au/node/7496 ), "It is a fact of geo-political life that the economic privileges that attach to intellectual property rights now accrue overwhelmingly to large corporate interests - not individuals. The largest users of the patent system, for example, are chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Both patent and copyright law confer huge benefits on some and significant costs on others. China, for example, is reportedly paying in excess of US$5 billion a year in patent licence fees to gain access to technology. With around 90 per cent of patents registered in Australia being foreign-owned, one wonders about the comparable dollar amount here, who's bearing the cost and what the implications of that might be." 

"Intellectual Property Rights Protection regimes, such as patents and copyright, unfairly discriminate against small firms in Australia and those in less developed and emerging markets."