July 18th 2015


  Buy Issue 2952
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY Don't worry, you'll be fine. Or will you be fined?

CANBERRA OBSERVED Investing must be more than just buying assets

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Eurozone shaken as Greece goes into default

SOCIETY Transgenderism: a pathogenic meme

EDITORIAL Political pendulum swings back to Abbott

RURAL SECTOR White paper helps but avoids the big issues

HISTORY Holland's Indonesian empire of spices

CULTURE AND SOCIETY Poisoning the wells of language an act of war

FAMILY AND SOCIETY Research finding hardly a shock: men don't mother

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION Free trade agreements of doubtful use: review

PUBLIC HEALTH Sweden shows the way on early intervention

CINEMA Favourite reprised with lashings of human hubris

BOOK REVIEW The great Labor Split in fiction

BOOK REVIEW Against the American Jesus

YOUR LETTERS

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION
Free trade agreements of doubtful use: review


by Peter Westmore

News Weekly, July 18, 2015

In its recently published Trade and Assistance Review 2013-14, the Productivity Commission has questioned the benefit to Australia of the much-touted free trade agreements, pointing out that they have never been subject to proper cost-benefit analyses.

The Productivity Commission is a significant influence on government policy, and has traditionally been one of the main drivers of free trade policy within the federal bureaucracy.

It has frequently criticised government support for Australian industry, and its latest review continues that position.

Its position on these issues is weakened by the fact that it does not take account of the social and indirect economic benefits of policies to support Australian industry, nor the fact that Australian primary and secondary industries are often faced with heavily subsidised imports from overseas competitors. However, its critique on the value of free trade agreements for Australia looks purely at the impact of free trade agreements on the Australian economy and people.

Bilateral trade agreements are a relatively recent innovation. Australia’s first bilateral agreement, with New Zealand, was signed in 1983. This was followed by agreements with Singapore (2003), Thailand and the U.S. (2005), Chile (2009) ASEAN (2010), Malaysia (2013), Korea (2014) and Japan (2015).

China agreement

An agreement with China has been reached (after 10 years of negotiation), but its full terms have not been published, nor tabled in Federal Parliament.

The commission said: “The proliferation of preferential trade agreements at the bilateral and regional level (referred to commonly as ‘free trade agreements’) is adding to the complexity and business transaction costs of the international trading system.

“However, the practical impacts of agreements being entered into by Australia remain unclear and highlight the need for thorough evaluation of the negotiated agreement text prior to their signing.

“In substance, the devil resides in the detail of these agreements and full and transparent analysis is not afforded to the final texts for many of them.”

The commission criticised the distortions introduced by agreements that imposed different product-specific rules of origin for merchandise trade and ownership-based origin rules for services and investment.

It also said that some agreements granted rights of legal recourse for commercial loss to foreign investors not available to national investors, and linked to this, imposed more stringent intellectual property rights protection on Australians than existed previously.

Free trade pharmeceuticals

This has been of particular concern in the pharmaceutical industry, where free trade agreements have empowered drug companies to extend patent protections and impose higher costs on imported pharmaceuticals.

The commission also expressed concern at the gap between the hype and the reality of free trade agreements. It said that “current assessment processes in Australia fall well short of what is needed to adequately assess the impacts of prospective agreements”.

“This is reflected in the wide and concerning gap identified in comparing the assessment analysis undertaken for the Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement (EPA) with the commission’s previously published benchmarks of what constitutes a comprehensive pre-execution assessment.

“Current assessment processes do not systematically quantify the likely costs and benefits of negotiated texts to an agreement, fail to consider the opportunity costs of pursuing preferential arrangements compared to unilateral reform and ignore the extent to which agreements actually liberalise existing markets.”

The commission was also sceptical of the extent of additional liberalisation achieved through these agreements.

It said that “an index-based analysis by the WTO indicates that services provisions negotiated under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand agreement added little if anything to those already afforded by services commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)”.

“On the other hand, application of the same methodology to the analysis of bilateral concessions under the Australia-U.S. agreement indicated a substantially higher level of bilateral concessions by Australia than afforded under GATS commitments.”

The commission raised similar concerns over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Australia and 11 other nations have been secretly negotiating.

While applauding the stated objectives of the TPP, the commission said: the confidential nature of the TPP negotiating text “makes an objective assessment of these aspirations problematic”. It added that the absence of any rigorous and transparent assessment of the agreement before government commitment was “a critical failure” in transparency.

“Post-negotiation assessment cannot lead to amendments of the agreed text, only to the Government deciding not to proceed with ratification. And the commission is unaware of any trade agreement that has been rejected in response to such post-negotiation assessment.”

Peter Westmore is national president of the National Civic Council.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

Frequently asked questions about section 18C (Simon Breheny)

Chilean legislators kill explicit sex-ed program (LifeSite News)

France to ban people with Down syndrome from smiling (The Huffington Post)

Child abuse and family structure: What is the evidence telling us (Family First NZ)

Woolworths beats ACCC supplier mistreatment case (Eli Greenblat)

Australia set to ride the quantum computing wave (Science in Public)

Weatherill warns states could introduce carbon prices (Rosie Lewis)

Green-left legerdemain doesn't make religion relevant (Fr James Grant)

Mass murderer Castro dies unpunished (Augusto Zimmermann)

The rise of political correctness (Angelo Codevilla)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm