Last week the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) sank without trace when delegates in Singapore could not reach agreement. And it is likely to stay sunk, at least in the intermediate term.
Ordinarily we might lament the failure to reach international agreements. Free trade is a benefit when it serves the common good, especially that of the most vulnerable. But the failure of the TPP is a cause for great joy. It was heralded as an agreement to liberalise trade and as a bulwark against China. In fact it was not about free trade, nor was the process by which it would have been carried through a proper one.
Most of the arguments made in Australia against the TPP attacked its economic value. Critics pointed out that previous bilateral trade agreements, particularly the 2005 agreement with the US, diminished trade and resulted in a net economic loss to Australia, particularly by raising the cost of pharmaceuticals.
Sugar producers, especially, complained that the TPP did not offer fair access to the United States market. Others protested that the provisions for pharmaceuticals further protected United States companies. When Australian negotiators could not win concessions on these points, the TPP was doomed in the Australian Senate. So the Australian delegation withdrew.
But this and other trade agreements are not objectionable simply because they bring no gain to Australia. Their deeper defect lies in the process by which they are negotiated. They are represented as trade agreements. In fact they produce a legislative web that limits the freedom of governments to pursue social and environmental goals in their ordering of society.
Such legislative changes should be discussed fully in the community by all sectors of society, and also be subject to detailed study and amendment by Parliament. Those representing the nation in international negotiations should be economically literate, but also socially alert.
Because these agreements are presented as about trade, those taking part in the negotiations look solely to economic criteria. Their natural conversation partners in forming their position are representatives of large businesses and orthodox economists. Non-government organisations and the community sector are not involved. So inevitably a restricted view of the national good will emerge.
This restricted voice is narrowed further because the negotiations between nations are conducted in secrecy. As a result when an agreement is shaped, its effects on social, environmental and human policy have not been analysed and discussed. The massive document containing the provisions of the