This extends to essential services like education, water, and health with proposals to open them up to investment from transnational corporations. Such opening would see the control of those services subject to the rules of the GATS and its potential to undermine the capacity of governments to regulate them in the public interest.

GATS has drawn strong community opposition for the power it grants to governments to challenge laws in other countries, particularly on essential service sectors. The original draft of the text on domestic regulation contained the "necessity test" that allowed for domestic regulation in areas like qualifications and licensing to be challenged with the burden of proof on governments to prove that their regulation isn't "more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service." Whilst this test has been removed there are many similar tests still in the present texts.

Already we've seen a trade dispute overturn US restrictions on internet gambling that were enacted to prevent social harm. Whilst GATS excludes public services it defines them as being provided solely by government and on a non commercial basis. This definition rules out most essential services, meaning that if listed, are open to have their regulations challenged.

AFTINET has been heavily involved in campaigning around GATS and succeeded in seeing water services taken out of Australia's GATS offers.

For more information on Australia's GATS commitments and a summary of the latest GATS offers see our resources page.