The failure of talks to conclude the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership over the weekend is welcome news. The government now has an opportunity to address concerns that entering into this preferential trade agreement will damage Australia’s interests, by asking the Productivity Commission to assess the agreement.
According to Trade Minister Andrew Robb, “98%” of the TPP “is concluded”, with only a handful of high-profile matters outstanding. On that basis, the Productivity Commission would be able to analyse the costs and benefits of the deal and model different options for the remaining outstanding matters, to offer an overall assessment of whether the TPP would be good for Australia.
This assessment process would not breach the secrecy that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade insists must be attached to the draft text. The government has already agreed to allow MPs and senators who were prepared to sign an undertaking of confidentiality to examine the text — the draft text could be provided to the Productivity Commission on a similar basis.
The PC’s analysis could inform public and parliamentary debate about the final agreement. If the TPP is found to be beneficial in net terms, that would provide a different context for considering those areas where Australia has agreed to negative consequences (for example, on intellectual property, or on investor-state dispute settlement) than if, overall, the treaty was of no benefit, or actually negative, in net terms.
In short, there is no good reason why Andrew Robb should not now ask Australia’s most respected and independent public economic body to vet the agreement he insists will be good for Australia. Unless, of course, it’s not.
You mean “Trust Us – The Government that made Bronwyn Bishop Speaker” isn’t enough?
…. then again their hands are probably tied – “preoccupational matters”?
I don’t disagree that the Productivity Commission should evaluate the proposed arrangements. But you make the fundamental mistake of proceeding on the basis that the TPPA is a free trade agreement. It is not. Only 5 of the 29 chapters deal with trade. The rest cover a multitude of areas that have a great deal more to asserting American corporate hegemony than they do with trade.
A second vital aspect is that it is also part of US policy designed to forestall continued Chinese growth and power projection in Asia and the Pacific. It is why China was excluded from the negotiations.
The third point is that it is not just the PC that should look at the terms of the treaty. It is a fundamental denial of the democratic process that the population should be denied having an input into such a major process affecting all of us. It is simply outrageous that only a limited few should see the draft, and be sworn to secrecy for several years about that they have just read (no notes, copies etc allowed). If you can reconcile that with democratic process please enlighten us.
James O’Neill – Absolutely spot on!
It beggars belief that in this day and age, the population of this country can have the very adverse terms and conditions of the TPP imposed upon them, in almost complete secrecy.
Isn’t that the mark of a dictatorship?
With a single bound, Oz is free.
Of grovelling stupidity, cupidity & treason!