Australia stands to gain almost nothing from the mega trade deal sealed with 11 other nations including United States, Japan, and Singapore, the first comprehensive economic analysis finds.

Prepared by staff from the World Bank, the study says the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership would boost Australia's economy by just 0.7 per cent by the year 2030.

The annual boost to growth would be less than one half of one 10th of 1 per cent.

Other members of the TPP stand to benefit much more, according to the analysis. Vietnam's economy would be 10 per cent bigger by 2030, Malaysia's 8 per cent bigger, New Zealand's 3 per cent bigger, and Singapore's 3 per cent bigger.

The study explains that highly developed nations such as Australia are either relatively reliant on things other than trade for economic growth or are already fairly free of trade restrictions.
Australia and the United States benefit the least from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The study says it would boost the US economy by only 0.4 per cent by 2030.

Non-members would suffer as members directed trade to other members. The biggest loser would be Thailand, whose exports are set to fall 2 per cent while Vietnam's grow 30 per cent.

Since sealing the deal in October the Australian government has been reluctant to commission an economic analysis of its effects, turning down an offer from the Productivity Commission.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the deal as a "gigantic foundation stone", saying it would deliver "more jobs, absolutely".

It opens up trade between members but makes trade more difficult with non-members through a process known as "cumulative rules of origin" where members lose privileges if they source inputs from countries outside the TPP.

The Productivity Commission has been strongly critical of the provisions saying that they turn so-called free trade agreements into "preferential" agreements.

The Partnership also requires members to sign up to tough intellectual property provisions and to submit to investor-state dispute settlement procedures administered by outside tribunals.
World Trade Online says the negotiating parties are planning to sign the agreement in New Zealand on February 4. It says Chile has confirmed the date and some trade ministers have already made arrangements to travel to Auckland, but it says New Zealand has yet to issue formal invitations.
The deal will not come into place until it has been ratified by at least 6 of the 12 signatories representing 85 per cent of their combined gross domestic product.

President Obama is expected to use Tuesday's State of the Union address to push for US ratification.
Australia has to table the agreement in Parliament for 20 joint sitting days and consider a report from the joint standing committee on treaties before it can ratify the agreement.

Labor has yet to announce its position. It has said previously that it opposes investor-state dispute settlement procedures but has agreed to them in the Korea and China free trade agreements.
A spokeswoman for Trade Minister Andrew Robb said the agreement would deliver enormous benefits by driving integration in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific, and establishing one set of trading rules across 12 countries.

"The World Bank report demonstrates that all 12 member countries – representing around 40 per cent of global GDP – will experience economic growth and increased exports," she said.

- Peter Martin

So once again the "better Economic managers" sign us up to a deal that massively hampers us while giving barely any benefits.

Surely everyone who think the Libs have any sort of economic credentials is on life support atm.

Kiron22 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 9:30am:

So once again the "better Economic managers" sign us up to a deal that massively hampers us while giving barely any benefits. Surely everyone who think the Libs have any sort of economic credentials is on life support atm.

Well said  :)

Honestly what is with the Libs signing us up to "FTA's" that completely rip open our markets while project the markets of others? The Japan and Korean FTA's are so heavily bias towards the Koreans and Japanese, with protections on almost all their agriculture and industry, while they have unrestricted access to ours.

The Libs are so bad at making FTA deals it's crazy.

Kiron22 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

Honestly what is with the Libs signing us up to "FTA's" that completely rip open our markets while project the markets of others? The Japan and Korean FTA's are so heavily bias towards the Koreans and Japanese, with protections on almost all their agriculture and industry, while they have unrestricted access to ours. The Libs are so bad at making FTA deals it's crazy.

You have to wonder what on earth dumb dumb was thinking putting a deadline on a FTA , negotiations hadnt dragged out through 2 prior governments for no reason.

Our exporters get alot. The US also doesn't get alot. Why? Because our countries already allow for a lot of free trade, so we don't stand to benefit as much as those countries that are only just now opening up to more trade globally. It doesn't mean we get a bad deal. It just means the playing field is becoming more level.

A good try from AC.  Now let's see what the official comment is from the Coalition - will they make up stuff like AC, or will they have some actual analysis/proof that Australia has a lot more to gain than from the article as suggested.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

Our exporters get alot. The US also doesn't get alot. Why? Because our countries already allow for a lot of free trade, so we don't stand to benefit as much as those countries that are only just now opening up to more trade globally. It doesn't mean we get a bad deal. It just means the playing field is becoming more level.

so why would we sign a deal that levels the playing field if we already have the advantage? Do you see BHP helping level the filed with start up miners? Or coles helping out the independent corner stores?

You libs are farken stupid beyond the pale

The world bank says so. Gee, it must be true then.

crocodile wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:05am:

The world bank says so. Gee, it must be true then.

Why do we elect our Govt?  We should get the World Bank to run the show?

Swagman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

Why do we elect our Govt?

apparently its to give the 2nd and 3rd world countries a chance at a level playing field

Swagman wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

crocodile wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:05am: The world bank says so. Gee, it must be true then. Why do we elect our Govt?  We should get the World Bank to run the show?

They seem to be doing such a sterling job in the Euro area.

John Smith wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:21am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:19am: Why do we elect our Govt?  apparently its to give the 2nd and 3rd world countries a chance at a level playing field

Damn you, Smith - I wish I'd said that...... (shakes fist at sky)....

John Smith wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:21am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:19am: Why do we elect our Govt?  apparently its to give the 2nd and 3rd world countries a chance at a level playing field

Yes that's why we elect Labor Governments... :D

"Preferential" - seems to be the key word in the story. I'd take more notice of the Productivity Commission than the World Bank or the dense Libs and Labs


"The Productivity Commission has been strongly critical of the provisions saying that they turn so-called free trade agreements into "preferential" agreements."

John Smith wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:01am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 9:56am: Our exporters get alot. The US also doesn't get alot. Why? Because our countries already allow for a lot of free trade, so we don't stand to benefit as much as those countries that are only just now opening up to more trade globally. It doesn't mean we get a bad deal. It just means the playing field is becoming more level. so why would we sign a deal that levels the playing field if we already have the advantage? Do you see BHP helping level the filed with start up miners? Or coles helping out the independent corner stores? You libs are farken stupid beyond the pale

Because it opens up previously closed markets, such as China, for our exporters. Gawd, you Labturds are farken stupid beyond belief! ::)

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:36am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:21am: Swagman wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:19am: Why do we elect our Govt?  apparently its to give the 2nd and 3rd world countries a chance at a level playing field Damn you, Smith - I wish I'd said that...... (shakes fist at sky)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGvb0UtVEjY

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 11:09am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 10:01am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 9:56am: Our exporters get alot. The US also doesn't get alot. Why? Because our countries already allow for a lot of free trade, so we don't stand to benefit as much as those countries that are only just now opening up to more trade globally. It doesn't mean we get a bad deal. It just means the playing field is becoming more level. so why would we sign a deal that levels the playing field if we already have the advantage? Do you see BHP helping level the filed with start up miners? Or coles helping out the independent corner stores? You libs are farken stupid beyond the pale Because it opens up previously closed markets, such as China, for our exporters. Gawd, you Labturds are farken stupid beyond belief! ::)

We already have a free trade deal with China
We have been exporting to China for many years already

Here's a graph of earnings from 2001 to 2011

https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/australias-exports-to-china-2001-2011.pdf

(don't worry it's on the 1st page you won't have to read & possibly learn something)



What were you saying about "CLOSED MARKETS" Teaspoon?

Just to rub your stupid nose in it a bit more


Quote:

Australia’s exports of goods and services to China in value terms, have grown from $8.8 billion in 2001 to $77.1 billion in 2011, representing average annual growth of 25.6 per cent (Chart 1). This was well above Australia’s average export growth rate of 8.4 per cent per annum to the world. As a result, China has risen from being Australia’s 6th largest export market in 2001 to become our largest export market since 2009. It is now significantly ahead of Australia’s second largest export market, Japan (exports valued at $52.4 billion in 2011).