The inconsistencies of Labor’s trade policy evidently still vex caucus, with members of the left this week again pushing back against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which Labor has decided to wave through parliament despite repeatedly raising concerns about its provisions and having a policy position against key aspects of the secretly negotiated deal. Legislation for the deal went through the House of Representatives last night, despite the fact that even the TPP’s spruikers admit its benefits will take over a decade to reach a grand total of less than two days’ extra national income a year.
Labor is backing the revised TPP despite its provisions for investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) and waiving labour market testing and despite Labor’s own policy of never signing up to a deal with ISDS ever again. The Augustinian logic presented by Jason Clare and the party leadership seems to be that they’ll sign on to a deal with ISDS this one last time, but never again, right?
If backing a deal despite it being against Labor policy is confusing enough, yesterday Bill Shorten offered a trade policy that is, by any objective measure, utterly incomprehensible but which these days passes unnoticed. Asked about the China-Trump trade war, Shorten declared “it is greatly concerning the mounting trade protectionist barriers between the United States and China.” But he didn’t express concern about the impact on the global economy, with its flow-on effects to our own, or about the degradation of a rules-based international trade regime, or that this is the sort of stuff that has preceded world wars, but instead worried about … Australians being able to buy cheaper imports.
If you’ve got product made in either country, which usually goes between the United States and China, and because of tariff walls cannot enter the United States or China, this product needs to find a home. And we have a very open borders in Australia. I am greatly concerned that Australian industry could be the innocent bystander victim of a trade war between China and the United States. It is long past time for the government to explain how we are provisioning and protecting Australian industry from the consequences of product from China or the United States coming to Australia because it can’t go to each other’s country.
So according to Labor the biggest issue from a global trade war is Aussie consumers and businesses might benefit from being able to buy cheaper imports. Really. And Shorten wants stronger anti-dumping laws, despite regular laws to “level the playing field” in recent years. Labor has “some very sensible proposals to strengthen the anti-dumping laws in Australia,” he says.
Let’s sum up Shorten’s position. He’s very concerned about “the mounting trade protectionist barriers between the United States and China” so in response he wants to raise our protectionist trade barriers — barriers that already cost our construction industry alone $2 billion a year.
Did the government, via new trade minister Simon Birmingham, call Labor out on this hypocrisy? Good god no. The political class is one giant happy family when it comes to protectionism. “Our government strengthened the anti-dumping regime to prevent possible diversion of dumped or heavily subsidised goods,” Birmingham said.
Yep, those filthy foreigners — how dare they try to give Australian consumers and businesses the benefit of cheaper imports! Australia should respond to two global giants engaging in the economic equivalent of punching themselves in the face by giving itself a black eye. That’ll show ’em.
Yes, the idea of waving through the TPP with ISDS provisions while also saying never again is a peculiar form of madness.
For the record, ISDS provisions are nothing to do with free trade, they are in fact a protection racket for the worlds biggest corporates.
And once again BK, anti-dumping provisions are pro-free trade. Dumping is all about subsidised products being dumped on a market. If they are subsidised they are anti-free trade. The level playing field requires no subsidies, no dumping.
And comparing sub-standard steel from less regulated economies with high grade steel is also not anti free trade, it’s about standards.
It ain’t that hard. Asbestos lined metal wiring, anyone? Bernard thinks that would be good because, look, it’s so cheap.
Yes, I don’t know who got in Keane’s ear about anti-dumping being evil. The point of anti-dumping is to level the playing field against government subsidies from other countries, not erect barriers to free trade.
….. Have you tried reading “50 Shades of Grey”?
I smell a rat. Conspiracy theory # 101.9.18
Is the TPP a deal too good to be true, you bet.
I can only HOPE that Bill has not done a deal with The Devil, to back a trade deal in exchange for political ‘protection’ from News Corp’s worst excesses. Hi Rupert, Hi IPA & Friends!
Even if Not true, but “leaked” by Sky prior to the election, it would snatch Bill’s defeat from the jaws of victory and leave Australian citizens with another LNP nasty party AND a colonial style Corporate shackle TPP.
So, this is a VERY BAD move Bill.
No TPP deal untill it is transparent and protects our workers and the Australian Government.
Agree, not happy re the TPP, nor the Witness K issue, not I choose to back the party that at least tries to do the right thing for most Australians despite their occasional errors of judgement.
I find myself not agreeing with you a lot lately Bernard. Fancy still carrying on about the construction industry being subsidised, would you rather deaths on building sites and Chinese workers not being paid (RHH), better to keep things protected I say. P.S have you forgotten about the dreadful Australian car industry yet?
I am impressed both with your article of yesterday (more about the disarray of the Libs than of their policy on climate change) and your article of today. Thats 2/2 Bernie – and you well know that I am a hard bastard to impress.
I think I am one notch closer to presuming the prospect of a Labor victory but I have stated endlessly that there is no policy from either Labor or the Greens that one can analyse as one would (indeed must) a business venture. Appealing to Ruv a simple test would be : ‘would either Labor or the Greens obtain funding from a bank upon what they have submitted to the public’ and the answer is : no way in hell.
For what is is worth I have commented on Mr Murphy’s article (concerning USA – China Trade Wars) and in the same breath I’d like to say that from a dreadful start Mr Murphy seems to be coming along just fine in terms of analysis and writing.
There is considerable overlap between Murphy’s article and your own. What Shorten ought to get through his head is the (so called) trade war is a proxy for substantial strategic issues between the two countries. At a push one could include Russia. The current spat is merely “essence” as Marx would have described it. It may will have consequences for Australia only because Australia is not developing 21st century products because, inter alia, it doesn’t have the education system to do so and Gonsky is a step in the opposite direction.
The second consideration is that Australia can no more compete with global manufacturing than can the USA. The difference is that with the productive capacity of the USA is such that the country could become self-sufficient rendering imports unnecessary. Then we would have an expletive problem with the A$ollar.
Birmingham needs Shorten (Labor) as a laxative for the TPP so Birmingham is not going to throw rotten eggs at the Opposition. That is the reason, rather than being a member of a club for protectionism that Birmingham let Shorten run on.
As for Birmingham, given the volume of trade imported from China (that is manufactured in Vietnam but with a “made in China” tag is comment as to dumping is just plain idiotic and Shorten, if veracity existed, would have called him out.
This topic deserves a special issue. The Monthly tried not long ago but I’m unsure of the grade to award; perhaps a conceded C although it would have edified a few who were commencing from zero.
For what you may think it is worth it is the articles such as I have mentioned here for which I am happy to pay a subscription. If Rundle decided to write articles that are actually relevant to political ideology rather than a “poor bugger me” version of ideology – strawberries, tennis players and what-not, I (for one) would be better pleased. Ditto for the ramblings of Ms Hamond which one can read on FB for free.
Call me out of touch but I don’t give a damn as to the virtues (or otherwise) of sodomy or cross-dressing in schools but I do give a damn about the changing world political and economic order and I’d thank Crikey to inform me – for which I’m happy to pay.
Lordy! Would they obtain “funding from a bank”?
After this thing dries out from a lashing of nostril coffee, you may owe me a new keyboard.
You may have to appeal to Crikey’s (or Schwarz Media’s) Public Liability but you may (or may not) agree that the matter is one of consistency. However, more to the point of the article, it seems that the TPP is something that we had to have.
As an aside, do you think Shorten has two to a dozen lines of analysis on his desk in regard to the TPP? A $grand says no.
I’ve no idea whether Shorten or more sensibly the shadow Trade Minister and Shadow Treasurer has said analysis, nor do you.
What I do know is that Bernie will sleep well after receiving your endorsement as will Mr Murphy….high praise indeed
Your 1st sentence : yes – hence the bet.
As you your second sentence :
Ng GJB’s reply to you (Morrison out of Ideas 21 Sep. 20:49) ‘Will Labor be better?’ is a fair question.
As stated previously, I am coming around to the prospect of a Labor gov. for 2019 but on account of the apparent utter disarray within the LCP and hence no unified policy (cancellation of COAG – or, possibly, risk another spill)
However ‘detail’ does not seem to be Shorten’s strongest suit and clearly was not the case for Rudd. Given what biography exists, Rudd detested details but “loved” announcements etc or anything to put him in the limelight.
There are a few subscribers that don’t care for the least criticism of Labor (my party right or wrong or pissed or sober) but the point is that Labor can exercise initiatives or it can coast. Then there is the witness K stuff sitting alongside TPPs etc.