TPP hangs on Congress vote

Negotiations around the high level trade deal involving 12 Pacific Rim countries commenced in March 2010 in Melbourne.

It was set to be concluded in 2013 but talks between the 12 Pacific Rim countries involved, including Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Vietnam and Mexico, have stalled for various reasons.

Victorian Liberal MP Dan Tehan said last week the US Congress voted on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation which would have enabled Congress to pass the TPP in a form that ensured it wasn’t “picked apart” by Congress.

Mr Tehan said the TPA was a vital piece of legislation required by the US administration to help finalise the TPP - but it was voted down last week leaving the ambitious trade deal in a “state of flux”.

He said the TPA was voted down due to an attached Bill that was designed to provide assistance, especially to manufacturing sectors, through the TPP.

Democrats attached that Bill to the TPA but “sadly” the same party then voted against their own measures, he said.

“What we now hope for - on Wednesday our time - is that the Democrats will see sense and back President Obama and give the congress its TPA so that we can then look to finalise the TPP by the end of the year,” he said of the upcoming vote.

TPAs are used by the US Congress to effectively give the US President executive powers to negotiate trade deals according to broad principles like creating jobs and assisting increased exports for ranchers and farmers.

While the TPA move was designed to give President Obama the opportunity to “fast track” TPP negotiations, the final deal would still require the US Congress’s final approval.

Mr Tehan said President Obama’s own party voting down the TPA last week was “a fairly low blow”.

He said it was a tactical manoeuvre to prevent him getting the authority he needed to finalise the TPP and “sadly it seemed to be union inspired”.

The AFL-CIO (The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) – the US equivalent of the ACTU - seemed to be behind the TPA’s failure, he said.

“It was a sad day because the TPP will help the US economically in the Asia pacific region and obviously help Australia,” he said.

Mr Tehan said the TPP was an important trade deal for Australia that’s also supported by the National Farmers Federation.

“Getting access to the 12 markets in the TPP is vital for our interests and especially for our agricultural interests,” he said.

“USDA modelling shows the Australian agricultural sector would be one of the biggest, if not the biggest beneficiaries of the TPP so there’s a lot at stake here for Australia.”

But Greens trade spokesperson and Tasmanian Senator Peter Whish-Wilson welcomed the failure of President Obama’s “fast-track” legislative package through Congress, saying it highlighted the fierce debate occurring in the US over the worth of the TPP.

“If President Obama can’t get the Leader of his own party in the Congress, Nancy Pelosi, nor a majority of Democrats to support him on the TPP it really must be a terrible trade deal,” he said.

“While this legislative defeat for fast-track does not yet mean the TPP is dead, it does mean it is limping towards oblivion.”

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the Australian parliament's involvement in the TPP process was already set at fast track and “will be nothing but a rubber stamp”.

"It’s high time we made our trade treaty processes democratic and transparent so all stakeholders can have confidence that (Trade Minister) Andrew Robb is not trading away our national interest for more headlines and a few agricultural stakeholders,” he said.

Despite the Green’s warning, Mr Tehan said the TPP was a good deal because Australian agriculture would be one of the chief beneficiaries and it would also improve access for Australian services into the 12 countries.

“You’ve got to remember we have free trade agreements with China and the US but we don’t for markets like Mexico and Canada,” he said.

“The TPP enables us to get favourable access into those new markets and it’s a good opportunity for us regionally, in the Asia pacific, to enhance our access to markets.

“To my way of speaking, as an export trading nation, we’d be mad not to pursue it and get an outcome on it.

“Trade creates jobs and adds value to jobs – that’s why the Japan, China and Korea FTAs will be so beneficial to our nation and that’s why we need to keep going because in a globalised world, Australia is a trading nation and the cheaper the access we can get to other nations the better it’ll be for us.”

Mr Tehan also played down concerns about Australia allowing US beef imports in exchange for sure despite potential risks of Food and Mouth Disease.

He said all protections against introducing diseases into Australia would be retained, despite the TPP.

“Our quarantine system would remain the same - all we would do is say to the US is, ‘If you can meet all of the requirements that we ask of you when it comes to the health of your products then of course we’d allow your beef in’, just like the US allows Australian beef into their market,” he said.

“But if there are quarantine issues around US beef then we obviously wouldn’t let anything in and nothing will change in that regard.”

According to the USDA, red meat imports from Australian in 2014 were a record US$2 billion.

Mr Tehan said many people in the local industry wouldn’t have an issue with that import figure, while the US was unable to send its beef to Australia.

He said trade and quarantine rules are in place which allows Australia to access other markets and we have rules in place which regulate how people access our markets.

“We can’t say, ‘you should accept our product and then turn around and say for no good reason we won’t accept yours’,” he said.

“But if there are good reasons - and quarantine reasons for Australia are absolutely vital - then we’re not going to let US beef in.

“So in that regard nothing will change unless the US can stringently satisfy our quarantine arrangements.”