The Australia free trade pact

The United States and Australia have signed a free trade deal that virtually eliminates all tariffs on manufactured products between the two countries. And the bitching has just started –some justified, some not. One of the more absurd objections comes from the Australian entertainment sector:

Despite the Federal Government’s assurances that it has retained the right to protect the Australian film and television industry from the onslaught of US product under the new trade deal, local screen producers and directors are not convinced. “We are very disappointed,” said the national director of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Simon Whipp. “On the information we have so far, Australian audiences of the future will not enjoy anywhere near the same access to Australian programs as today’s Australian public does,” he said, referring to pay TV, digital TV and new media.

This would ordinarily be the point where one would snarkily observe the number of Hollywood stars that are Australian, but Tim Blair makes better and more serious points (link via Glenn Reynolds). A more substantive objection is made by the Cato Institute’s Aaron Lukas who points out that big sugar strikes again:

In August 1940, after the Battle of Britain, Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously remarked that, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” In the considerably lower stakes field of trade policy, a variation of that phrase aptly captures the perverse standing of the U.S. sugar industry: “Never have so few taken so much from so many.”…. In contrast to some proposed trade agreements, an FTA between the United States and Australia should be an easy sell in Congress. Both parties to the agreement are wealthy countries with high wages. Both have stringent laws intended to protect labor and the environment. The argument that free trade spurs a “race to the bottom” was always flawed, but it lacks even the patina of plausibility in this case. Yet sugar’s absence from this FTA is disappointing on three counts. First, sugar stands out as a symbol of a perceived American hypocrisy on trade. The unwillingness of the administration to even attempt to dismantle self-defeating protectionism in a relatively insignificant sector of the economy calls into question its larger commitment to open markets. Second, in order to get a pass on sugar, U.S. negotiators were forced to overlook Australian protectionism on wheat, broadcasting and audio-visual services, and other areas. Third, the exclusion of sugar from free-trade disciplines sets a terrible precedent that emboldens other import-competing producers to demand similar favors. The U.S. dairy market, for example, will also be spared from full competition under this FTA.

A sour aftertaste on what would otherwise be a sweet deal. UPDATE: My brother blogs from Australia:

It’s pretty embarassing when my brother, who lives in Chicago, writes about a Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Australia before I do.

Psych!! To be fair, he provides a link to the Australian government’s official web page on the agreement.