8 October 2015
When I left
university I went to work for the Department of Trade and Industry, in import
licensing. I was then a true believer in protectionism, in regulating the flow
and nature of imports and consequently the choices available to and standard of
living of New Zealanders, in the wider interests of encouraging domestic
industry, promoting economic stability and maintaining reasonable living
standards.
However, I was
quickly disillusioned. Not only was the policy ineffective, it was unevenly and
incompetently applied, it was fundamentally unfair, and certainly did nothing
to build efficient domestic import substitution industries, or to keep
unemployment, inflation and the balance of payments under control. Import
licensing was widely abused, and served only to entrench the privilege of the
wealthy import warehouses and selected merchants.
That early
exposure to the failure of protectionism and the folly of trying to insulate
the domestic economy from the rest of the world was quickly reinforced by the
increasingly erratic economic policies of the Muldoon Government of the time.
As a latent liberal, I became an enthusiastic convert to free trade and open
market economic policies, and have not wavered in that view over time. But I also
learnt that there is no economic nirvana, that every system is far from
perfect, and that governments have to strive constantly to uphold the best
overall interest of their citizens, to achieve a form of economic justice.
It is a short
step from there to the Trans Pacific Partnership, which had its seeds in New
Zealand’s economic reforms of the 1980s, including the initiation of the
Uruguay Round of talks for freer world trade. That led to the formation of the
World Trade Organisation to replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) that had regulated world trade since the 1940s.
From the time of
the formation of the then nascent European Economic Community (EEC) in the late
1950s, through to the more fully blown version of the European Union in the
1980s and 1990s, the focus has been on economic and political integration as
the bulwark of broad stability. Other agreements, like the North American Free
Trade Agreement, and our own Closer Economic Relations agreement with
Australia, show the moves to eliminate trade barriers have been consistent and
widespread over a number of years now. They have been reinforced by a series of
bilateral arrangements (like the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement, for
example).
Against that
backdrop, the momentum to develop a broader Trans Pacific Partnership was
inevitable, its ambitious nature notwithstanding. From New Zealand’s
perspective, it completes the process the Labour Government began in the 1980s
through its domestic economic and social reforms, and moves through the Uruguay
Round to liberalise world trade. (In many senses, it is the Lange Government
that deserves the kudos for the TPP deal, yet its survivors seem hellbent on
running away and hiding from that achievement.)
Since frozen lamb
was first exported from Port Chalmers to Britain in 1882, New Zealand has been
on a quest for economic security, for stable and reliable markets for our
products. For almost a century that quest was satisfied by the guaranteed
British market, but after it joined the EEC in the 1970s, we had to rapidly diversify
our trade through the pursuit of bilateral (and now through the TPP
multilateral) free trade agreements. Either way, trade has long been part of
our economic DNA, a point today’s economic revisionists would do well to
remember.
Yes. I may not know my New Zealand Political History but I do remember the furore over protectionism and the dreaded tariffs. So while there is negative spin over the TPPA, I am of the mind that in time we will do well out of it - especially if there will be future reviews of the deal.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear whether Mr. Dunne realizes the risk of Investor State Dispute Settlements causing
ReplyDelete(a) lawsuits against all levels of government where a corporation claims loss of profits on the basis of government action for the sake of public health or the environment or fair wages, etc. - this has happened many times with other trade agreements
(b) the 'chill' effect of that risk, which intimidates such governments out of fear of lawsuits. Again, there are known cases of this.