There are strong signs that the Federal Government will soon commit to the controversial 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite concerns it could be signing away its freedom.

Among a range of provisions set to break down walls for big multi-nationals, one of the most concerning is the inclusion of ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) clauses.

The ISDS mechanism will enable foreign companies to take up legal disputes against national governments when they believe their access to consumers has been restricted.

The Government’s own independent Productivity Commission has said the ISDS provisions would undermine the role of domestic courts and “the freedom of governments to regulate in the public interest”.

But still, Trade Minister Andrew Robb is bounding boldly toward finalisation of the deal, saying it is something “we would never not be part of.”

“Economically, it will set a new benchmark for liberalisation across the Pacific region. It will also strengthen geopolitical ties between members,” Mr Robb told reporters this week.

The Productivity Commission’s view is difficult to ignore, as it is one of the closest groups to the Australian Government to have raised concerns.

For the most part real details of the TPP have only been accessible to negotiating governments, and the large group of private companies involved in drafting the deal and lobbying for its passage in the US.

The Government claims it is working to avoid the worst parts of the ISDS clauses, by including safeguards to prevent the provisions being invoked in cases where regulation is designed to protect health or the environment.

The exact wording of this protection has yet to be agreed.

Mr Robb says ISDS provisions - which are included in about 30 of Australia’s investment treaties with other countries - are nothing to worry about. 

He argues that they protect Australian companies in other countries, and promote vital investor confidence.

Mr Robb has rejected the commission’s criticism of the TPP, claiming once again that substantial benefits would flow from the deal, which seeks to cover about 40 per cent of global GDP.

His claims go against modelling by the US Department of Agriculture, which found that even if the TPP managed to slash all tariffs to zero and remove all other import restrictions, it would result in a GDP change of 0.00 per cent for Australia, Canada, Chile, Peru, Singapore, and the United States after 10 years.

Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Mexico, could potentially make GDP gains from the deal of a whopping 0.01 to 0.02 percentage points.

Labor trade spokesperson Penny Wong has backed the Productivity Commission’s view, saying; “We have seen from Andrew Robb a failure to really engage with some of those concerns”.

Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir has major concerns too.

“If the rumours are true, having international companies being able to come in and essentially stand over our law enforcement and sue us if we interfere with their projected income is a very bad thing for our sovereignty. That’s my initial major concern,” Senator Muir said.

Patricia Ranald, co-ordinator of the union-linked Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, told News Corp reporters that “ISDS gives additional rights to foreign investors that domestic companies don’t have”.

In the US, the TPP has cleared a key hurdle in the Senate, and is now heading to a final vote on the legislation.

The US Senate voted 60-38 overnight to grant President Barack Obama fast-track authority for the TPP.