sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

NZIER's John Ballingall says it is the long term impacts from the TPP that will matter more than the short-term gains

NZIER's John Ballingall says it is the long term impacts from the TPP that will matter more than the short-term gains

By John Ballingall*

Today’s announcement that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) has been concluded is good news for Kiwi firms and households.

It’s not perfect, and the dairy sector in particular will naturally be frustrated. But TPP offers valuable benefits – and limited costs – across the economy.

Achieving full tariff elimination over time, aside from beef into Japan and some dairy products, on all of New Zealand’s exports to some of the largest economies in the world, is a very positive outcome.

That and the likely gains to New Zealand firms from lower costs of doing business in Asia-Pacific regional production networks and from enhanced investment flows, will positively contribute to lifting Kiwis’ living standards.

On the wider stage this New Zealand-initiated process has delivered the first large scale improvement in the global trading environment for years. It shows that globalisation’s support for improving world standards of living can continue. This is one more step in the long road to further integration in the AsiaPacific region and puts pressure on others not involved to make similar adjustments.

Considering the negotiating challenges facing New Zealand…

All policy analysis starts with a policy imperative. In relation to the TPP, the challenge can be summarised as: what can we do about the following developments?

• Asia-Pacific regional integration rules will change as a result of the TPP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and potentially the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP).

• The growth potential of New Zealand’s agricultural exports is reduced by being highly sensitive and thus highly protected by larger economies in the TPP (US, Japan, Canada, Mexico).

• It is “unthinkable”1 that New Zealand should not be part of any such changes – this would be detrimental to Kiwis’ living standards. We need to be ‘insiders’ on world trade and the TPP assists this effort.

And this is subject to the practical constraints that:

1. New Zealand is a small economy with low trade barriers. We offer limited additional market opportunities for TPP partners.

2. We are dealing with countries in which there are often multiple, conflicting vested interests and stakeholders with warped views on how economies operate, all of whom take considerable convincing about how any negotiation can deliver a mutually acceptable outcome.

In short, New Zealand needed to ask some of the world’s largest economies to give our exporters and investors additional opportunities in their most protected and sensitive sectors, with the promise of very little in return. So TPP – as with all trade negotiations for New Zealand – was very much a ‘constrained optimisation’ problem.

…the TPP agreement is an excellent outcome for us

Our negotiators have delivered a good deal, given the hand they have been playing. Their skill and the way they have clearly respected the fundamental interests of the community, while gaining real returns, is now evident.

The end result is that, outside of some dairy products and beef into Japan, all of New Zealand’s goods’ exports to all TPP countries will see tariffs completely removed over time.2

New Zealand’s exports of fruit, vegetables, wine, seafood, forestry products, wool and manufactured goods, which account for around 65% of our $20 billion of goods exports to TPP countries, will all enjoy tariff-free access to TPP markets over time.

On dairy, there are modest gains. Tariffs will be eliminated over time in the US on infant formula, milk powders and some cheese, and where tariffs are not reduced, New Zealand exporters will have greater quota access. Clearly this is a disappointment relative to an ideal outcome for New Zealand, but an ideal outcome isn’t a sensible comparator. The dairy sector is better off today than it was yesterday, and certainly better off compared to a scenario where New Zealand is excluded from the TPP.

On meat, sheepmeat will be tariff free when the agreement is implemented, apart from in Mexico where tariffs will be phased out over eight years. Beef exports to the US will face no tariffs or quotas after five years, and beef tariffs into all other TPP countries will be eliminated. And let’s not forget that beef into Japan has not been excluded altogether from liberalisation. Japan has agreed to gradually reduce tariffs from 38% to 9% over 15 years.

Officials estimate the tariff reductions on our goods exports equate to tariff savings of some $260 million per year once fully implemented.3

It’s about more than tariffs; it’s about competitiveness

But it’s important to remember that the real gains from the TPP are not short-run tariff savings for goods exporters – although these are clearly welcome. Rather, a concluded TPP will help New Zealand firms remain competitive over the medium- to long-term. And the TPP is a helpful shot in the arm of a flagging global trade liberalisation patient. As Minister Groser has stated, “long after the details of this negotiation on things like tons of butter have been regarded as a footnote in history, the bigger picture of what we’ve achieved today will be what remains.”

The Government estimates gains to the New Zealand economy of $2.3 billion per year by 2030. Of course, such modelling estimates are subject to uncertainty, but even if they are a fraction of the expected amount, it’s still a big number. And previous estimates of the gains from trade liberalisation have typically understated the benefits, as the ‘dynamic gains’ that come from new market-opening opportunities are usually not included.

Kiwi exporters’ competitiveness will be enhanced relative to non-TPP competitors, and they will be on a more level playing field compared to those firms with which they compete within the TPP. Improvements in areas such as customs, non-tariff barriers and food safety processes will reduce the cost of doing business and encourage greater participation in regional production networks. There is also an untested but potentially path-breaking new chapter on ‘Regulatory Coherence’ covering the role of Regulatory Impact Analysis, which can be important in minimising nontariff barriers over time.

So TPP will remove some of the grit in the wheels of Asia-Pacific supply chains. This will lower transaction costs for Kiwi firms, again boosting competitiveness and opening new avenues.

There will likely be small benefits for Kiwi services exporters, although the detail is yet to be released.

For New Zealand investors seeking to invest in TPP countries, the investor state dispute settlement provisions to the investment chapter will provide protection from discriminatory, unfair or unjust government actions. New Zealand firms’ assets will not be able to be expropriated without compensation. This all reduces the risk premium associated with overseas investment from New Zealand, helping New Zealand better integrate into the Asia-Pacific economy.

New Zealand will also become a more attractive destination for foreign investment from TPP economies, and from those countries with whom we have existing free trade agreements.4 The threshold above which foreign investors must meet business experience and good character tests (i.e. bear additional costs to get approval to invest here) has risen from $100 million to $200 million.5 Policy space around foreign investment in sensitive land has been retained.

There will be costs but earlier concerns are largely unwarranted

As the negotiations have unfolded, most concern in New Zealand has centred on a few high-profile areas of the agreement. Although we are yet to see all of the details, from material released to date it appears these concerns have been over-stated:

• Investor state dispute settlement – tobacco claims have been carved out, meaning that a tobacco company could not, for example, lodge a plain packaging claim against the New Zealand Government. Policy space to legitimately and in good faith regulate in the interests of health and the environment seems to have been retained. It is hard to see how New Zealand’s sovereignty will be materially affected.6

• Costs of medicines – the core of Pharmac’s operating model has not been dismantled. Additional processes to encourage greater transparency in its purchasing will cost $4.5 million upon implementation, and then $2.2 million per year thereafter. This is small in the context of an $800 million annual Pharmac budget. And relative to gains elsewhere, it is trivial. The $2.2 million cost is less than half the expected tariff savings on New Zealand’s exports of offal, for example.

• Intellectual property – copyright terms will be gradually extended from the current 50-year period to 70 years. This is expected to cost $55 million in foregone savings once fully implemented after 20 years. This is about the same amount as the tariff savings on our cheese exports.7

• Biologics – it does not appear that data exclusivity for biologics in New Zealand will be extended past the current five-year term, though the details here are not yet clear.

• Parallel importing – there will be no change to New Zealand’s laws in this area.

• Imposition on Internet Service Providers to manage copyright – there will be no requirement for ISPs to terminate accounts for copyright infringements. New Zealand is left to manage its own regime – subject, of course to lobbying by the usual suspects.

• Decreased tariff revenue – given New Zealand’s already-low level of applied tariffs, MFAT expects a reduction in tariff revenue of around $20 million per year. But New Zealand does not look to tariffs as a serious source of government income.

And on the world stage this shows that trade negotiations are not dead

On a pragmatic note, the WTO has been working on a major output since tentative beginnings in 1998 were turned into the Doha round in 2001. And despite the significant and useful advances made in 2013’s Bali package, the underlying WTO mechanism has been unable to do one of its central jobs – delivering a large scale improvement in the world trading environment.8

So New Zealand started looking at alternatives and with three other like-minded countries (Singapore, Chile and Brunei-Darussalam – the P4) commenced the journey that closed in Atlanta last night. The demonstration effect of this achievement cannot be overstated. An enormously complicated deal was pulled and pushed into being. It shows what can be done if the political will is strong enough.

In sum: TPP is an important step in the right direction for regional integration

In the coming weeks and months, we will get a better idea of the details of the TPP agreement for New Zealand firms and households. No doubt there may be some devil in these details, but based on what we have seen to date, we suggest that TPP will be highly net beneficial for New Zealand.

While there may be more trials and tribulations to come as TPP is subjected to ‘legal scrubbing’ and goes through the US Congress, today is a good day for the New Zealand economy, and our negotiators deserve a celebratory drink and a decent sleep.


1. As Helen Clark correctly stated last week.
2. MFAT. (2015). ‘Overview of sector outcomes’. http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_Overview_of_Sector _Outcomes.pdf
3. Note that it is doubtful that tariff savings will all accrue to Kiwi firms. Rather they are likely to be split between exporting firms and households in our key markets who can now buy imported goods at lower cost. But the outcome is the same: our exporters are more competitive and get better returns. Tariff savings are used in this article as a point of comparison with expected costs.
4. This is because of the ‘Most Favoured Nation’ clauses of our FTA investment chapters with those countries, which ensure they are not treated less favourably than countries in trade agreement signed subsequently (i.e. TPP).
5. Australia already has a higher threshold.
6. Also see NZIER. (2015). ‘ISDS and sovereignty: The use of investorstate dispute settlement mechanisms in trade agreements and their impact on national sovereignty’. Report to ExportNZ, 17 September 2015. http://nzier.org.nz/static/media/filer_public/bc/21/bc21a5b2-3a6b- 4ba2-8cf7-2f90fd5c6909/isds_and_sovereignty.pdf
7. This doesn’t mean that US corporate demands around intellectual property more broadly will go away now that TPP is signed. We can expect pressure to continue to be applied through other channels, such as direct lobbying of Ministers.
8. Although it has continued to be important for resolving trade disputes.


John Ballingall is the Deputy Chief Executive at NZIER. For further information you can contact him at john.ballingall@nzier.org.nz

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

14 Comments

On the wider stage this New Zealand-initiated process has delivered the first large scale improvement in the global trading environment for years. It shows that globalisation’s support for improving world standards of living can continue. This is one more step in the long road to further integration in the AsiaPacific region and puts pressure on others not involved to make similar adjustments.

I think not. That which is broken will not be fixed by signatories to an agreement.

US manufacturing declines on “overseas” weakness while Chinese manufacturing declines on “overseas” weakness as if the two economic systems never deal with each other, only the same, non-specific “global economy” that doesn’t somehow count either of them within its growing malaise? It seems far more likely, beyond a doubt, actually, that with the amount of trade between them (especially from China to the US) if Chinese manufacturing is declining than US “demand” is a problem. Read more

Up
0

here we go, media campaign and lobbyist in action for the next month.

Up
0

will positively contribute to lifting Kiwis’ living standards.

So whose labour laws will we be following - USA with 2 weeks annual leave or will we keep 4 weeks?

The historic free-trade trade agreement, reached between Canada, the United States, and ten other Pacific-rim countries, will otherwise lower and eliminate trade barriers and set common labor practices across industries in 40 percent of the world's economy.

https://news.vice.com/article/canadas-dairy-cartel-isnt-going-anywhere-…

Meanwhile Canadian dairy farmers will have their income 100% guaranteed for the next 10years. Think I might move to Canada ;-)

The Income Guarantee Program will keep producers whole by providing 100 per cent income protection to producers for a full 10 years from the day TPP comes into force. Income support assistance will continue on a tapered basis for an additional five years, for a total of 15 years. $2.4 billion is available for this program.
The Quota Value Guarantee Program will protect producers against reduction in quota value when the quota is sold following the implementation of TPP. $1.5 billion has been set aside for this demand-driven program, which will be in place for 10 years.
The Government also announced two additional programs:

The $450 million-Processor Modernization Program will provide processors in the supply-managed value chain with support to further advance their competitiveness and growth.
The Market Development Initiative will assist supply-managed groups in promoting and marketing their top-quality products. To support the initiative $15 million in new funding will be added to the AgriMarketing Program.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=1017899&crt…

Up
0

The historic free-trade trade agreement, reached between Canada, the United States, and ten other Pacific-rim countries, will otherwise lower and eliminate trade barriers and set common labor practices across industries in 40 percent of the world's economy.

Who determines the labour practices benchmarks?

British people will be encouraged to work as hard as the Chinese and Americans because the Conservatives have cut the money people can make from tax credits, the health secretary has said.

Jeremy Hunt told a fringe meeting at the party’s autumn conference that cuts to tax credits were designed to send an “important cultural signal” about hard work, as well as saving money.

Embroiling his party in fresh controversy on the subject, as he strayed from his usual brief to defend the government’s welfare changes, Hunt also suggested that those reliant on benefits lacked the dignity and self-respect of those who earned all their own money. Read more

The free laborer must work or starve. He is more of a slave than the negro, because he works longer and harder for less allowance than the slave, and has no holiday, because the cares of life with him begin when its labors end. He has no liberty, and not a single right. We know, ’tis often said, air and water are common property, which all have equal right to participate and enjoy; but this is utterly false. The appropriation of the lands carries with it the appropriation of all on or above the lands, usque ad coelum, aut ad inferos. (Even to heaven or hell.) Read more

Up
0

Sorry John I remain unconvinced.. All Goldman Sachs and Monsanto's lawyers didn't put this deal together for the good of mankind.. this looks and smells like a Trojan horse and I say burn it.. Anyone talked about how you leave this little club? Is there like a prenup type thing?

Up
0

No prenup. Somehow, the PM ("Cabinet") can sign it by himself. How the PM has that kind of power is beyond me.

Up
0

If the TPPA is a contract that binds a whole nations people,

binds the present government and all future governments

and if the contract is of such a high legal standing that it is above the reach of the local judiciary

If it has a political and a separate judiciary higher than the local judiciary

then it is NOT, i repeat, it is NOT a trade agreement,

it is a NZ CORPORATE CONSTITUTION binding the whole nation

As it also covers many nations

it is a written constitution for a Corporate Empire

NZ finally has a written constitution

Up
0

Finally a NZ written constitution !!! But one more disastrous cannot be imagined.

Up
0

I am sure our Constitution can absorb all the rules that others made on our behalf for someone to benefit..

(5 years talk, jeez...how long winded can ye be?)

Blind leading the blind does not constitute much of a future for Workers, but the shirkers, who have never Worked a day in their lives, will still be sitting pretty on top of the heap. Though some appear to be getting the boot.

A bit like the First World War, "Fix bayonets, over the Top ye go lads". Death before Dis-honor", then rub their hands with glee back at the Back, not the Front, when a win is a major loss of life, for the many.

I have never seen so many Leaders and Rulers and Economists fail to comprehend the real situations unfolding, around the World.

United Nations, notwithstanding. But FIFA is also a game of two halves too.

(Major winners and Losers).

No matter what the rules, the profiteers will ensure "Free Trade", will never be free, just as RVnormans and the likes products are not free of interest, nor vigorish, nor a little back hander.

Interest and exchange rates and yes, General Assembly himself, an unreliable factor, all around the World.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-usa-crime-macau-idUSKCN0S0… always a factor in over priced production.

In fact, most of the losers of the last World War, will actually win this time around, strangely enough. UN, not withstanding.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/tpp-trade-deal-who-st…

Turn and turn about. Maybe?.

Not to mention the Trade in Arms!. (And the vehicles to carry them).

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/06/us-investigates-isis-toyota/?icid=ma…

I said.....Not to mention Arms............did The TPP..discuss it.....I ask myself?

Free Trade.....ya Think.?

Up
0

Reasoned explanation from an independent body.

Cue unfounded hysteria and hyperbole.

Up
0

I wonder how will USA and other deal with the conflict of interests between the TPPA and the TPP with Europe..

Up
0

before the TPP becomes law, each country has to ratify it

Up
0

..and you think there is a chance the national Government won't?

Up
0

I wonder whether there are any specifics concerning trade of GM produce. Or whether some states (perhaps better resourced to fight legal battles and bullying than we are or perhaps more concerned with the health of their citizens) might be able to establish a favourable precedent that we could follow.

Up
0