Is the Rudd Government really about fair dealing or is it just posturing?

In November 2007 Indonesia was reported as again refusing to share viral material with the World Health Organisation (WHO) because of structural barriers to poorer countries sharing in the benefits of any vaccines created.

Last Sunday Science Daily reported that just because Avian Influenza has dropped off the mainstream media radar, doesn't mean that better vaccines are not being pursued.

What is less clear is the progress on producing vaccines, stockpiling and proposed distribution in times of pandemic.

In June this year the WHO prepared a draft document PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PREPAREDNESS: MULTILATERAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SHARING OF INFLUENZA VIRUSES AND ACCESS TO VACCINES AND OTHER BENEFITS

Wikileaks source says this of the document:

On the risk of Avian Pandemic Influenza (Avian/Bird Flu) negotiations at the World Health Organisation (WHO)
There's not enough flu vaccine to go around in the event of a pandemic. If it happens, you can bet that the rich will be vaccinated, and the poor will suffer.... and that multinational drug companies will make a fortune. Remember Tamiflu?
Ever since Indonesia began withholding flu viruses from the WHO to protest the injustices of the system, governments have been trying to renegotiate the terms of international flu virus sharing. Although Indonesia, African countries, and others in Asia and Latin America have put detailed proposals on the table, wealthy countries are staunchly resisting making any major concessions to make the system more fair.
This text, drafted by the Australian chair of the WHO negotiating group, purports to be a balanced take on various countries proposals; but it's not. It's more like business as usual. Under the scheme put forward by Australia, developing countries would continue to be ripped off, and continue to submit their viruses to WHO "for global public health", only to see those viruses claimed by multinational companies and put into products too expensive for them to afford.

Reading the draft does not reveal anything to refute this claim. Indeed, on the surface it does not seem to fulfill the SAGE recommendation to WHO in April 2007.

The Rudd Government is quick to use the media to trumpet its commitment to good international relationships, but detail often points to a contrary practice.

Perhaps the Federal Minister for Health Nicola Roxon, Minister for Aging Justine Elliot, Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith and Prime Minister Rudd might like to comment on what appears to be a proposal put forward by their man which favours the large multinationals over our near neighbours and the poor and elderly.