In the context of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the Emergency Committee for American Trade makes the following point:
The U.S.-Australia FTA did not include one vitally important component of a strong
investment chapter, namely investor-state dispute settlement. ECAT very strongly urges that investor-state dispute settlement be included with respect to all Trans-Pacific partners in the final agreement. Without such a mechanism, the investment chapter would be largely unenforceable for U.S. companies. ECAT also notes that Australia has included investor-state provisions in its most recently signed agreement – the Agreement Establishing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)–Australia–New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA).
If anyone knows, I'm curious as to what was going on behind the scenes that led to the U.S.-Australia FTA not having investor-state. As far as I know, every other recent U.S. FTA has it, and it sounds like Australia has used it in at least some other FTAs (although perhaps not all). So what were the factors that led to it being excluded from the U.S.-Australia FTA?