![](https://uat.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/John-Howard-US-studies-784-495.jpg?quality=70&w=740&h=400&crop=1)
There are a couple of theories of how Australia got an exemption from Donald Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. The government’s preferred narrative is that a century of “mateship” (their word) between Australia and the US and Malcolm Turnbull’s close relationship with Trump — helped by Australia’s very own Trump Whisperer, Greg Norman — secured the exemption.
An alternative is that Trump, they say, is a “transactional president”. He’s using the threat of tariffs to force Canada and Mexico to agree to changes to NAFTA. He is demanding the EU drops their “horrific barriers and tariffs”. And he did a deal with Turnbull: on Twitter, he complimented the Prime Minister for being committed to “a very fair and reciprocal military and trade relationship. Working very quickly on a security agreement so we don’t have to impose steel or aluminum tariffs.” Sounds, for all the government’s frantic denials that there’s any “security agreement”, like Trump believes there’s a quid pro quo for the status quo.
And then, as Turnbull pointed out, “the U.S. has a large trade surplus with Australia.” Which is very interesting.
When John Howard committed Australia to a free trade agreement with the Bush Administration in 2004, he claimed it was a massive economic win for Australia. “It is an historic agreement. It will add enormous long-term benefits to the Australian economy,” Howard claimed. “There are great benefits in this for manufacturing; there are great benefits in it for the service industry; there are very significant benefits in it for agriculture.”
But few of those benefits have ever materialised. According to US government trade data, the value of our exports of goods to the United States since the trade agreement commenced in 2005 have failed to keep pace with inflation, while the value of US exports to Australia have increased 28% in real terms (US exports surged in 2010-12 because of the strong Aussie dollar, but since then, the currencies have returned to a more usual relationship). As a result, the goods trade deficit between the countries has more than doubled from US$6.4 billion in 2004 to US$14.5 billion in 2017. As for the “great benefits for the service industry, service exports to the US have increased, but nowhere near as rapidly as US service exports have increased to Australia — in fact, DFAT has to use a dramatically different scale to show the two countries’ services exports to each other.
While the AUSFTA was widening our trade deficit with the US, specific parts of the deal were also hurting us. In 2010 the Productivity Commission concluded about the AUSFTA that “the extension of copyright provisions (in particular, for existing works) has clearly imposed a net cost on the Australian economy.”
It seems that the only indirect of the AUSFTA in the long run has been to widen our trade deficit sufficiently that even a protectionist man-baby in the White House thinks there’s no point in punishing us.
Malcolm Turnbull and his ministers echo John Howard for every preferential trade deal they sign. Every new deal is a massive achievement that will shower economic benefits on the economy and represent a bold new era in access to lucrative foreign markets for our businesses. The hard numbers of Australia-US trade show the truth behind such nonsensical claims.
If we get too many more wonderful lucrative trade agreements of the kind Howard brought us we’ll be bankrupt. Unfortunately the TPP looks just as bad, especially if Trump bows to business pressure and joins it.
Bernard,
This article demonstrates the same complete misunderstanding about the value of trade that Donald Trump has. You imply that a bilateral trade deficit is a problem. It’s no such thing, nor is it a failure of trade policy.
We have a bilateral trade deficit with the US because we’re primarily a primary industry exporter and the US is primarily a services economy. We export mainly to manufacturing countries, like China and the EU. We import mainly from ‘finished product’ countries, like the US.
Global supply chains mean a product can begin life as Australian raw materials, ship to Asia for manufacturing, then to the US for finishing, then back to Australia for consumption. All that gives us a trade surplus with Asia and a trade deficit with the US. It’s natural, and not a problem. It reflects a) the nature of global supply chains, and b) the way trade data is collected.
For you to write as though the Aus-US bilateral trade balance is in any way meaningful is as silly as Donald Trump launching a trade war
I agree, Dominic. It struck me that this is an oddly mercantilist view from Bernard.
Then why do we need a “free trade agreement” with the US? The supporters claimed there would be huge benefits for Aus.
Hahahahahahaha! The whole thing is an elaborate scam-be warned. In any trade agreement like this the strongest partner gets all the cream. Australia is the perennial loser. Our politicians and many business groups are somewhat stupid.
Exactly Venise
They’re not all stupid – some are in a position to make localised profits at the expense of the rest of us. We should stop voting for them.
I’m agreeing with Dominic too.
Bernard, the bullionist, could point to the flawed mantra of trade liberalisation as about “jobs and growth” or the fact that these “Free trade agreements” have been captured and perverted to Crony capitalist PTAs. Nearly all the benefits of free trade can be obtained unilaterally without giveaways to rent seekers.
Roger
A mere trade deficit with the US is not a problem in itself but Australia’s persistent deficits paid by capital inflows for business investment is. The restrictions on trade created by copyright law eg. the ludicrous “zoning” imposed by patent holders in the US, is also a massive problem.
The other huge problem in our trade deficit, including the so-called “services” deficit, is the use of US companies of transfer pricing to eliminate taxable profits in Australia.
The US so-called “FTA” has assisted the exploitation of Australia that has been going on for decades.
The US has not had as relatively large an inflow of capital for business investment. It has had a huge inflow of treasury purchases and is only now moving on business investment, as it sees the outflows of profits mounting over time. China, in particular, should perhaps consider selling US treasuries, an see how the inflated living standards of US business people fall.
Surely the point of the article is Howard’s lies re the fiscal benefits to us from the usfta, not the merits of world trade.
Jane, I agree that Bernard wasn’t saying there’s no merit in world trade, but he was implying that a bilateral trade deficit with a particular country is bad. What really counts is your trade balance with the entire rest of the world, because that tells you if you’re buying more than you can pay for at the moment (or the other way around).
At the same time, if you do have a trade deficit with the entire world, that mostly just tells you that people are confident enough in you that they’re willing to get their payment later even though they deliver their goods now. It’s basically good news. Unless your trade deficit is so large that you actually have to start dedicating half your effort to pay it off – *then* you’ve got a problem.
On Howard and the Aus-US “F”TA, I fully agree, it’s basically a pile of shit, as is pretty much every bilateral trade agreement. We shouldn’t bother with them. They’re mostly rent seeking opportunities and have very little to do with “free” trade
Only in fiction could a trade agreement mean that everybody wins. The whole scam is designed to rip off the smaller party. The only reason the LNP Neocons love them so much is that they are so wedded to big business that they scarcely see themselves as removed from the corporate body politic. They are no longer Australians, they are suits clamoring for the big table.
Am I wrong? Just ask former Trade Minister, and former Australian TPP fanboi, Andrew Robb, where he is working nowadays.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/former-trade-minister-andrew-robb–takes-role-with-chinese-company-behind-lease-of-darwin-port/news-story/307aa3fa44c9188da7c28069aff18331
You’re right. Just ask Professor of Economics at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, Dani Rodrik (a higher authority on these things than Andrew Robb probably ever heard of)
These agreements are mostly rent-seeking opportunities. Which, as you say, is why the LNP love them: it creates an opportunity for the uber-haves to raise the drawbridge behind them. Economists love free trade because it creates competition. Business loves FTAs because they shut down competition
Why haven’t these deals been regularly reviewed and adjusted as required? Isn’t that what good economic managers do? In the 2000s this came up repeatedly and Peter Costello among others batted the mere idea away as being silly. The numbers looked poor from the start and here we are 14 years later. Worse, the conduct of those negotiating was clearly focused on appeasing the US rather than having the people of Australia understanding and having input into the deal. This and the details that emerged made me think, “these people aren’t working for Australia.”
It’s often been said by their critics that US and Israeli negotiators say one thing in public but then get very hard and unyielding behind closed doors. I always wrote that criticism off as racist nonsense. Now, over time, I believe they were right then and now. It’s not racist, it’s what they do.
Because to review and adjust is admitting the original deal was wrong. And the LNP won’t admit that.
But a basic review, of the kind they’ve been demanding for various projects, would put this all to bed. Like a lawyer in a Simpsons cartoon, “I’m confused”.
If this deal and the TPP are such marvelous deals for Oz and the Aussies, so grandiose, so brilliant, so awesome, so beneficial,,,, then why are we not given ALL the details? Told about every nut and bolt in plain language,,, why not? Is there something to hide?
Are we not able to make judgements ourselves? After all, we are adults, just like the elected members of our Government.
OR, as I and many others suspect,,,,, are there elements in these deals which would put our government in bad light, elements which sell us short?? Embarrassing elements?
Perhaps our grandkids will get to hear the entire (unwashed) truth in 30 years time.
Cheers
Mick
We’re probably not getting those details because their dog ate that homework?
Yeah, and I’ll bet the Tax Payers are paying for the dog’s vet fees !!!
…. There is a doG?
Looks like we need a Royal Commission into free trade agreements. Who is doing the research into the results of the free trade agreements we have in place? The Australian public deserves to know the truth. Presumably the fine print in the free trade agreement with the USA excluded steel and aluminium. Otherwise how could tariffs be on the table in any event?
The Productivity Commission has reported to government on this. It’s available here, along with submissions from the public: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/trade-agreements/report