There’s a wee snippet in the Briefings to Incoming Ministers regarding ACTA. Yes, I do read these things. Not for fun, you understand, but they’re always a good way to get an overview of what government agencies are working on and how they are constructed, especially when there’s a change of Government. The Beehive site has gathered them all in one place so that you can access them. I downloaded the lot, because you never know when such things might vanish away…

Anyway, I hunted through the various documents for anything on ACTA and was finally rewarded. And where do you think I found it? In the BIM for Communications and IT(pdf, 104 Kb)? Nope. The MFAT BIM (pdf, 864 Kb), then (it is a Trade Agreement, after all)? Uh-uh. Perhaps the Guide to MED for BIM (pdf, 114 Kb) or the MED Economic overview for BIM (pdf, 349 Kb)? No, and no.

What about any of the 6 MoCommerce BIMs? Ah, yes, there on page 53 (paras 35-37) of the innocuously named CTI_BIM.pdf (pdf, 361 Kb) we find a description of ACTA:

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)

35 The goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for the enforcement of intellectual property rights that countries can join on a voluntary basis. The discussions represent a cooperative effort by the governments to respond to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works.The discussions are not being conducted as part of any international organisation.

36 New Zealand along with a number of trading partners, including the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Switzerland, have been engaged in discussions over the development of a plurilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (“ACTA”) – a joint initiative by the United States and Japan. There have been three negotiation rounds to date. Progress has been slow, and it is likely to be well into 2009 before the agreement is concluded.

37 There has been some opposition to ACTA, both in New Zealand and overseas by groups representing the interests of users of copyright material and from groups representing internet service providers. This opposition is based on assumptions that ACTA will result in increased rights for copyright and trademark owners and give enforcement agencies what are seen as excessive powers. These assumptions are difficult to refute as much of the Agreement has yet to be drafted, and New Zealand’s negotiating mandate has not been publicised.

Not much, you’ll agree, nothing we didn’t know and nothing particularly scary (although the wry comment about refuting the assumptions made me smile, in a former public servant way).

Anything else? Yes. Yes, there is. The dry as dust Vote_Commerce_BIM.pdf (pdf, 261 Kb) contains a couple of gems, more in what they don’t say, rather than in what they do.

On page 13 of 41, we have para 53:

53. Additional work underway focuses on a broader international agenda. This includes participation in FTA negotiations with Malaysia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, and in the WTO Doha Development Round negotiations. Significant areas looking ahead include preparatory work toward FTA negotiations with India, Korea Information withheld in accordance with section 6(a) of the Official Information Act – prejudice to the international relations of the Government of NZ. New Zealand is among a group of developed and developing countries participating in the ongoing negotiations for the development of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement(ACTA), which aims to curtail the growth in the global trade in counterfeit goods and pirated copyright works.

No mention of any sort of opposition or even assumptions. Which is a little odd, no? This is the main BIM on Vote Commerce – if you only read one BIM from this sector, this is the one you’ll read. (By the way, it shows that the relevant Minister is Simon Power, not Steven Joyce)

The other mention is more significant. The last 4-5 pages of the actual report (16-20) are given over to a table of “Pending decisions or actions”, and on page 20 we find:

Issue-Intellectual Property
Consider progress of the negotiations for the development of an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which may require further decisions by Cabinet concerning changes to officials’ negotiating mandate
Reason why a decision/action is needed
Depending on the progress of negotiations, changes to the negotiating mandate may be
required to facilitate conclusion of the negotiations.
Timing
31 March 2009

Say what? The election was on 8 November, the BIMs would have been well underway at that point, as they’re prepared any time there’s a change of Minister. I attended a briefing at MED on 12 November (reminder to self – blog about briefing) called the IP Criminal Enforcement Workshop:

The main aim of the November workshop is to promote better cooperation between copyright and trade mark owners, intermediaries and various law enforcement agencies concerning the enforcement of existing criminal offences that already exist under a variety of different statutes (i.e. enforcement of crimes other than just copyright piracy). Furthermore,the workshop provides us with an opportunity to update parties interested in the development of ACTA on the progress of negotiations.

The officials at that meeting opined that they didn’t foresee the agreement being concluded before the middle of next year, and wouldn’t be too surprised to still be arguing the details in November 2009. Yet, at the same time, they were advising the Minister that they might have to change their mandate to be able to conclude negotiations. In March. The meeting is in Rabat, Morocco [that hub of international trade] in March. Coinkidink? I think not, stinky puppy.

What is it they can be concluding, seeing as how MED told us in November that there wasn’t a draft text that could be released? And why would they need to change their negotiating mandate, if the agreement needs to come back to Parliament to be ratified? Something smells about this, and it’s not good.

We need answers, not evasions. As Michael Geist has said:

This may sound repetitive, but citizens of the many countries involved in the ACTA negotiations should not have to rely on leaks and speculation to learn what their governments are proposing. All governments should support a more transparent process that begins with full public disclosures of drafts as well as more robust public consultation and participation.