This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Here's an interview with Alan Oxley who is described as a "senior trade advocate" and who feels that Australians should be repentant about Mark Latham's half hearted attempt to curb the rights of multinational drug companies.
Certainly, Alan Oxley has mastered political doubletalk with such gems as:
The Congress went out of its way to give a big vote to the Australian agreement, more than any other trade agreement ever got. They weren't voting for the agreement, they were actually voting for Australia. And then to be told by the managers of the house that the Australians are now trying to sort of fiddle a bit more leaves a bad taste.
If they weren't voting for the agreement, does that make the agreement void?
If Congress has given an almost unanimous vote to Australia,
has Australia been elected as some sort of leader of Congress?
You have to wonder if Alan understands the basics of making a deal,
the agreement offered some concessions to Australia and some concessions
to the U.S.A. thus both parties bring something to the bargaining table.
The vote from Congress was a clear indication that Australia could
(and should) have asked for more. As for the fiddle a bit more
comment, this is just outright misleading... what was amended was
the legislation implementing the FTA (as written by the Liberal party)
and it was ammended on request of the Senate of Australia (i.e. our
government, representitive of the Australian people, doing its job).
The U.S.A. doesn't write our laws and the FTA itself does not
contradict any of the amendments made to that legislation.
You've got to remember, people in Congress have a much longer political life than people in administrations. It's very important for Congress to be favourably disposed to Australia.
What exactly is the internationally recognised political lifespan of
people in administrations
and what does it mean?
Why is it so important for Congress to be favourably disposed to Australia?
Are we going to be asking favours of Congress in the near future?
What sort of favours are we going to be asking about?
Once more, Alan seems not to understands the concept of making a deal.
If there are favours that we need from Congress, these should have been
part of the FTA. Doing business by giving generously in every direction
to get people favourably disposed
and hoping they give you something
in return someday is not trade, it is foolishness, and a fast trip to poverty.
So what else is Alan Oxley up to? Well, he has a bunch more to say about the US/Australa FTA and I'll quote a few choice bits.
The Agreement eliminates tariffs, valued between three and five percent, on most industrial goods. It expands access for dairy products and establishes virtually full market access for beef over 18 years (despite comments to the contrary, this is one of the most significant outcomes). It removes other agricultural barriers.
So Alan is saying that our most significant outcome was the ability to sell beef to the US market. Given that our beef is the cleanest in the world and highly sought after in Europe, our beef is not difficult to sell. The main problems facing Australian beef farmers are drought and a lack of ability to negotiate with the buyers directly. Increasing trade with the U.S.A. is not going to help either of these two issues, it will just push up the price of beef for Australian consumers and make more money for the "middlemen" such as the supermarket chains.
Anyhow, let's give Alan the benefit of the doubt and say that the
dairy and beef markets are significant outcomes
.
The excessive focus on treatment of agriculture in the FTA is a backward look. This has been largely the consequence of the debate over the FTA.
That's strange, in a few pages agriculture goes from most significant
to backward
.
What is the significance of the point that Australia did not secure full access to the US agricultural market? It's not a commercial or economic point.
Now agriculture has gone from most significant
to not even
being a commercial or economic point.
The Agreement will deliver important additional returns to Australia's farm sector. But agriculture is not today the economic cornerstone in the economic relationship. Australia's economic relationship with the US has been reshaping since Australia made its manufacturing and services sectors competitive 20 years ago. Agriculture will diminish even further in importance. Like in the US, Australia's services sector is the leading generator of growth and jobs. The real importance of the agreement is how it fosters economic integration of the sectors which will drive growth and competitiveness in the future.
Oh yes, our competitive manufacturing industry.
That would be why we import so many manufactured goods from China, Japan, Korea and Europe. All those Aussie made cars come to mind. Mitsubishi have been shrugging their shoulders, shaking heads and looking for easy ways to write off their investment in Australia.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.