The Claim
“Gave permission to Chinese companies to sue the Australian government if it implements laws which reduce the corporation's profits. Australian companies can't even do the same to the Chinese government. The actual text of the legislation is being kept secret.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Regarding ISDS in ChAFTA:
The claim refers to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism included in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA). ISDS provisions allow foreign investors to access international arbitration tribunals if they believe government actions breach investment obligations [1]. ChAFTA was concluded on November 17, 2014, and signed on June 17, 2015, entering into force on December 20, 2015 [2].
The specific claim that Chinese companies can sue the Australian government under ChAFTA's ISDS provisions is TRUE. Chapter 9 of ChAFTA contains investment protections and ISDS mechanisms [3]. However, the characterization that this is one-sided or unusual requires examination.
Regarding "secret" legislation:
The claim that "the actual text of the legislation is being kept secret" is FALSE. According to official records, the deal was completed on November 17, 2014, and details were released two days later [2]. The full text of ChAFTA was publicly available before the agreement was signed in June 2015 [4]. While critics like Dr. Patricia Ranald of AFTINET complained at the time that the text should be released for scrutiny, the text was in fact released publicly and underwent parliamentary review through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties [5].
Regarding reciprocity:
The claim that "Australian companies can't even do the same to the Chinese government" is FALSE. The ISDS mechanism in ChAFTA is reciprocal. According to DFAT documentation, "The ISDS mechanism in ChAFTA provides Australian investors with the ability to enforce investment protection obligations contained in the agreement, and to partly mitigate any sovereign and political risk of investing in China" [6]. The agreement provides "non-discriminatory treatment" for investors from both parties [3].
Missing Context
Labor Government Precedent:
The claim omits crucial context that ISDS provisions were standard in Australian free trade agreements negotiated by previous Labor governments. As Liberal Senator Eric Abetz noted in parliamentary debate in November 2014: "The Labor Party are very sensitive to be reminded that these ISDS provisions are common in these agreements — agreements to which the Australian Labor Party themselves signed up the Australian nation" [5].
Labor governments had previously negotiated ISDS provisions in agreements with Singapore (2003), Thailand (2005), and Chile (2009) [7]. The ISDS mechanism was not a Coalition invention but a continuation of bipartisan trade policy.
Philip Morris Precedent:
The claim fails to mention that Australia had already faced ISDS litigation before ChAFTA. Philip Morris had sued Australia under the Australia-Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty over tobacco plain packaging legislation [8]. This demonstrates that ISDS mechanisms were already part of Australia's investment treaty framework, not new to ChAFTA.
Legitimate Purpose of ISDS:
The claim presents ISDS purely as a threat to Australian sovereignty without acknowledging its legitimate purpose: protecting Australian investors in China. The mechanism was designed to give Australian businesses "greater confidence" when investing in China and protect their competitive position [9].
Source Credibility Assessment
Sydney Morning Herald (Original Source):
The Sydney Morning Herald is a mainstream Australian newspaper owned by Nine Entertainment. The November 18, 2014 article by Gareth Hutchens accurately reported concerns raised by Labor and Greens senators about ChAFTA's ISDS provisions [5]. The SMH has no particular partisan alignment - it has been critical of both Labor and Coalition governments. The article itself is factual reporting, presenting both criticism from Labor/Greens and the government's defense of the provisions.
However, the original SMH article does NOT claim the text was "secret" or that the arrangement was non-reciprocal - those embellishments appear to have been added by the claim author (mdavis.xyz).
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes. The Labor government under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard negotiated and signed free trade agreements containing ISDS provisions:
- Australia-Thailand FTA (2005): Contains ISDS provisions
- Australia-Singapore FTA (2003, updated 2005): Contains ISDS provisions
- Australia-Chile FTA (2009): Contains ISDS provisions
Additionally, Labor maintained the Australia-Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty, which Philip Morris later used to challenge Australia's tobacco plain packaging laws [8].
Labor's Position on ChAFTA:
Labor under Bill Shorten initially opposed ChAFTA, calling it a "bad agreement" and "dud deal" [10]. However, Labor eventually supported the agreement after securing amendments to labor market testing provisions [11]. Labor's opposition to ChAFTA was primarily focused on labor mobility provisions, not the ISDS mechanism itself [10].
Balanced Perspective
Criticisms (Valid):
Critics raised legitimate concerns about ISDS mechanisms. Dr. Kyla Tienhaara from ANU noted that corporations had used ISDS to challenge legitimate public policy measures like tobacco plain packaging, and warned that similar challenges could arise under ChAFTA [5]. Environmental groups feared ISDS could be used to challenge climate and environmental regulations [12].
Government's Position:
The Abbott government defended ISDS as "benign" and standard practice. Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Trade Minister Andrew Robb stated: "The ISDS provisions contain strong safeguards to protect the Australian Government's ability to regulate in the public interest and pursue legitimate welfare objectives in areas such as health, safety and the environment" [5].
Expert Assessment:
ISDS provisions were standard in international trade agreements during this period. Australia had approximately 20 agreements with ISDS clauses by 2014 [5]. The mechanism provides reciprocal protection - Australian investors in China gained the same rights as Chinese investors in Australia. The Philip Morris case demonstrated that ISDS litigation is costly even when the government wins, but also showed that Australia could successfully defend its regulations [13].
MISLEADING
3.0
out of 10
The claim contains elements that are factually false and deliberately omits crucial context:
- FALSE: The text was not "kept secret" - it was released publicly in November 2014 and underwent parliamentary scrutiny [2][5]
- FALSE: Australian companies CAN sue the Chinese government under ChAFTA's reciprocal ISDS provisions [6]
- TRUE BUT MISLEADING: Chinese companies can sue the Australian government, but this is a standard reciprocal provision found in 20+ Australian FTAs, including those negotiated by Labor governments
The claim presents ChAFTA's ISDS mechanism as a unique, one-sided Coalition policy when it was actually standard bipartisan trade policy. The emotive framing ("Australian companies can't even do the same") is factually incorrect - Australian investors received identical protections in China.
Final Score
3.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim contains elements that are factually false and deliberately omits crucial context:
- FALSE: The text was not "kept secret" - it was released publicly in November 2014 and underwent parliamentary scrutiny [2][5]
- FALSE: Australian companies CAN sue the Chinese government under ChAFTA's reciprocal ISDS provisions [6]
- TRUE BUT MISLEADING: Chinese companies can sue the Australian government, but this is a standard reciprocal provision found in 20+ Australian FTAs, including those negotiated by Labor governments
The claim presents ChAFTA's ISDS mechanism as a unique, one-sided Coalition policy when it was actually standard bipartisan trade policy. The emotive framing ("Australian companies can't even do the same") is factually incorrect - Australian investors received identical protections in China.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (13)
-
1
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Dfat Gov
-
2
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
3PDF
China-Australia Free Trade Agreement - Parliamentary Committee PDF
Aph Gov • PDF Document -
4
FTA text and tariff schedules - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Dfat Gov
-
5
Chinese corporations allowed to sue Australian government under free trade agreement - ISDS Platform (reproducing SMH article)
The deal struck between China and Australia on Monday will contain an Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism that will allow Chinese corporations to challenge the Australian government for
Isds Bilaterals -
6
Understanding investor-state dispute settlements - Law Society Journal
The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA), signed 17 June, represents a historic milestone, giving Australian businesses the ability to operate in China and trade with Chinese firms in a significantly more favourable business climate with few restrictions and greater investment opportunities.
Law Society Journal -
7
Australia's Ambivalence Again Around Investor-State Arbitration - Oxford Academic
Academic Oup
-
8
Philip Morris v. Australia - UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator
Discover UNCTAD’s one stop shop on all investment policy matters ranging from national and international regulation to cutting-edge publications, news and discussions.
Investmentpolicy Unctad -
9
ChAFTA fact sheet: Investment and investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) - DFAT
Dfat Gov
-
10
The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA): - Wiley Online Library
Onlinelibrary Wiley
-
11
Opposition proposes amendments to secure support for China trade deal - ABC Rural
Labor has proposed amendments to Australia's 457 skilled migration program, which it says will "mean all Australians can unite behind the China free trade agreement".
Abc Net -
12
Community groups urge governments to keep investor rights to sue governments out of RCEP - AFTINET
Aftinet Org
-
13
When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging - The Conversation
Australia comprehensively defeated the tobacco giant, but is left with a multi million dollar bill.
The Conversation
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.