There seems to be the beginnings of a rear-guard uprising against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement – the US-led trade pact between 12 Pacific Rim nations (including Australia) – with a number of groups rallying against the deal.
ABC’s business editor, Ian Verrender, has written a damning assessment of the pact, arguing that the TPP will bolster protections under the guise of “free trade”, leading to worse outcomes for Australians:
In most cases, they [FTAs] have very little to do with trade at all, and in almost all cases, nothing at all to do with free trade.
For the most part, they are political documents. They offer politicians a stage, a platform upon which to demonstrate that they are “getting on with the job”; they keep bureaucrats busy; and they offer everyone involved the opportunity to speak in acronyms.
When it comes to economic benefits, however, they can be downright harmful.
And just like the Australia US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA to the cognoscenti) signed a little over a decade ago, the Trans Pacific Partnership has the potential to seriously compromise Australian sovereignty while delivering almost nothing in economic terms…
Back in 2004, then health minister Tony Abbott… [signed] that historic free trade deal with America.
It was a trade deal that fundamentally altered Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, limited the Commonwealth’s power to price medicines cheaply, and contributed to the soaring costs of our health system…
The TPP is being driven by America. Like most of these deals, it is politically driven. Fearful of China’s rise, America wants to corral its allies under a trade umbrella. In the process, it also wants to further the interests of American corporations and American workers.
Specifically, it wants copyright laws and patents tightened and extended…
The problem is, protection is the antithesis of free trade…
Verrender is joined today by The Age’s Kenneth Davidson, who has raised similar concerns about the TPP:
[The TPP] is in fact a push for US regional dominance with particular relevance to its rivalry with China.
…modelling of the three [recent] FTAs over the next 20 years by the Centre for International Economics… showed that the combined agreements would increase GDP by $24.5 billion – or a risible 0.1 per cent a year…
The same consultancy undertook a study of the AUSFTA in 2005. It initially forecast a gain of $4 billion accruing to Australia from liberalisation of the US sugar market. That figure was later increased to $5.6 billion, even though it became clear the sugar market would not be opened up to Australia…
The revised forecast was achieved by a reduction in the estimated “equity risk premium”. Leading trade economist Ross Garnaut said the revised result did not pass the “laugh test”…
Last week the Productivity Commission released a savage critique of the TPP and the so-called FTAs. It appears to be a last-ditch attempt by the commission to get the government to avoid putting Australia’s collective head into an even bigger noose via the TPP…
So what’s in the TPP for Australia?…
Even the Liberal Party’s junior bedfellow’s, the National Party, are having deep reservations about the TPP, threatening to revolt if sugar is excluded from liberalisation:
Nationals representing east coast Queensland seats containing the bulk of the nation’s sugar production are drawing a line in the sand on the issue, arguing Australia needs to get tough on sugar market access. The moves comes after the sugar industry failed to win significant access to the giant Chinese market in the China-Australia free-trade agreement.
Sugar growers also expressed disappointment at the level of improvement in access to the Japanese market under the Australia-Japan FTA. Sugar was not included in the US-Australia FTA in 2004.
Queensland Nationals senator Matt Canavan told The Australian: “If there is no sugar on the table, I don’t think we should do the deal’’…
Nationals MP for Hinkler Keith Pitt said the disappointment from the 2004 US FTA was “terrible’’. “It’s certainly not something I’d like to be repeated…
Nationals MP for Flynn Ken O’Dowd said… “I can’t support a TPP without sugar. It is important and we can’t neglect it’’…
US President, Barrack Obama, has already stated that the US won’t slash agricultural tariffs and import quotas as part of the TPP, thus excluding Australian sugar and beef farmers from realising benefits, just as it did under the AUSFTA.
Let’s hope the Nationals, the Greens and Labor unite to block the passage of the TPP into law after it is signed by trade minister, Andrew Robb.
The TPP is an unmitigated dud, strengthening patent and copyright protections at the expense of Australian consumers/taxpayers, introducing risky investor-state dispute settlement provisions that could permit foreign firms to sue Australian taxpayers if/when the Government legislates in the national interest, all the while doing little to free-up agricultural protections for Australian farmers.
