Bipartisanship in Trade: Dreaming the Dream

Trade rarely figures as an election issue. And with New Zealand heading to the polls on 7 November, this year may not be much different.

Coalition partners are already sparring over the NZ/India FTA, but the two largest parties at least seem to agree on one thing: trade matters to New Zealand, That is encouraging. New Zealand has benefited over many years from a broad measure of political consensus on trade. But today that consensus cannot simply be taken for granted.

The question is not whether political parties should agree on every aspect of trade policy. That is unlikely. It is how we can best pursue New Zealand's enduring trade interests consistently over the long term.

Bipartisan agreement on the value of greater consultation across party lines is not new. At a recent Helen Clark Foundation webinar, the current and former Trade Ministers both spoke positively, for example, about the Opposition Spokesperson joining the New Zealand delegation to the latest World Trade Organisation Ministerial.

This was once established practice when the WTO was at the forefront of trade liberalisation efforts. Then the action shifted to bilateral and regional agreements, like the Trans Pacific Partnership. That was when bipartisanship suddenly took a back-seat to political point scoring.Now the risks come not from there being too many big, complex agreements, but too few. The world is turning inwards as thirty years of economic integration fall victim to protectionism and economic nationalism.

If, in such an environment, we are going to see fewer shiny new agreements, do we need to worry about political consensus?The answer is yes, if only because agreements take time to complete, usually beyond a three year political cycle.Look at the NZ/India FTA – concluded in double quick time but only because we had been trying to secure an agreement for years beforehand.The NZ/EU FTA took even longer.

The other reason is that trade agreements are no longer just about trade. Selling something overseas involves much more than getting a product across the border and paying a tariff. Businesses need to be able to invest, build partnerships, move goods and people efficiently, transfer data securely and meet compatible regulations and standards.

That means trade policy increasingly reaches into areas once thought of as largely domestic, such as transport, investment, immigration, digital policy and regulation.

So what can be done practically to foster a greater degree of political consensus?Here are four ideas:

1. Make more common the practice of engaging with other parties on trade:this means inviting other parties onto trade delegations and more briefings by officials.This already happens now but there seems to be reluctance to involve other parties too early.Trade negotiations are a lengthy and delicate business. Better political consultation does not give a right of veto. Some understanding of the rules of the game, especially in terms of public disclosure, will likely be required.
2. Make more background information available: agencies certainly have improved their game in this regard in recent years. While confidential negotiating texts cannot be released, more plain language summaries of key issues are needed, along with regular updates in an accessible format. This would help to dispel some of the myths around trade policy making and make it harder to exploit any ill-founded fears.
3. Improve the overall governance framework for trade policy:New Zealand lacks a credible, properly resourced, independent advisory mechanism which can receive confidential information, commission research and help build public understanding. Earlier attempts at this lacked the resources to develop any independence of thought.More recently the former Labour Government established a Trade for All Advisory Group the National Government has established an NZ/EU FTA Domestic Advisory Group. Both have sought to incorporate a wider, more inclusive agenda and membership.
4. Reform the role of the Select Committee: it is a common criticism of the current Parliamentary Treaty-Making Process that by the time a treaty or trade agreement is submitted for examination, it is too late to make any changes. The officials who negotiate the agreement then mark their own score sheet by preparing the National Interest Analysis.A possible solution might be to empower the Select Committee further by increasing the professional capability of parliamentary staff to play a greater role as agreements are negotiated and to prepare the NIA.

The ideas above are focused as much on promoting public trust as they are about ensuring political parties are up to date with trade negotiations.Too often bipartisanship is thought of solely in terms of whether a party might vote for or against a trade agreement when it comes to Parliament.In today’s political environment, the Government cannot assume that it will have the numbers to pass legislation.That calls for earlier engagement both with political parties and with the public they seek to influence.

Bipartisanship may not win votes in the coming election. Political parties will behave as they must. In a global context where progress is harder to make and the outlook more uncertain and unpredictable, building greater public trust should help ensure that initiatives aimed at securing New Zealand’s long term economic prosperity are better understood and more widely supported.

Stephen Jacobi is an Honorary Senior Fellow at the Helen Clark Foundation.