On Nov 15, 2013, Wikileaks disclosed a confidential document detailing a chapter on U.S. Trans-pacific agreement involving Australia and ten other Pacific Rim governments.

The documents leaked contain section on intellectual property rights which includes enforcing geoblocks and restricting sale of devices capable of getting around geoblocking. If agreeable to this, Australia will possibly pay more for video games, software and tech.

Also, a chapter of the agreement made public by Wikileak imposes intellectual property rights on supposedly diverse industry like the pharmaceuticals and aspects like civil liberties. The intellectual property enforced by the Trans-pacific agreement involved proposals to increase the term of medical patents (beyond 20 years) and lower global standards for patentability.

Australia only releases trade agreement texts for public and parliamentary discussion after a signature was sought from the Cabinet. But first the trade agreement should be reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. However, text of the agreement should not undergo any form of alteration. The parliament can only debate on the laws prescribing the implementation of the agreement but as for the texts that would limit the regulatory liberty of the government, legislation is not required.

According to Wikileak, the chapters showed that U.S. is trying to employ its highly restrictive vision of intellectual property on other countries.

"The US administration is aggressively pushing the TPP through the US legislative process on the sly," Julian Assange, the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks told The Guardian.

"If instituted the TPP's intellectual property regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you're ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs."

Ruth Townsend of The Conversation also warned Australia against the inclusion of ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) in the agreement.

"The inclusion of an ISDS provision is significant because the clause gives authority to major corporations to challenge laws made by those elected to do so in the nation's best interest in international courts of arbitration. For example, if investments were expropriated or nationalised by a rogue state or dictatorship, the ISDS authorised foreign state investors to bypass domestic legal systems and have their case heard by an external party. The external arbitrators could order the upholding of investor rights and state duties contained in an international trade agreement," Townsend wrote.