DAVID Bennett's entry to local politics in proposing to field a new slate of candidates for the district council found support in this space. I agree with him that we need new faces at that table. I've also commended Pacific Helmets as an example of innovation and as a significant contributor to our local business community.
His recent commentary on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, (Chronicle, January 16) gives cause for concern. It's not the fact that Mr Bennett is unequivocally in support of the deal, and I am opposed to it. It's not that difference which gives me pause, as I believe in robust argument as fundamental to democracy. It is the manner in which Bennett chooses to disagree.
Mr Bennett rightly argues in favour of free trade and against protectionism. We're in agreement there, but as usual the devil is in the detail. He cites a tender for Pacific Helmets' entry to the market in India, where the need for his helmets is obvious. The Indian Government imposes a 37.5 per cent duty on the helmets, which he cites as protectionism. It's not protectionism, as he makes clear that there are no competitors in India to be protected. And the TPP would not change that particular tariff, as India is not a participant country.
While we agree on our opposition to protectionism, it's how that term is defined that separates us. And that is fundamental. Critics, including economics Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, argue that the Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions of the treaty make it one of enforcing protectionism for large corporations. The ISDS allow corporations to sue countries when the domestic regulations arguably interfere with future profit. Countries cannot in turn sue corporations for harms their products create. Nicola Young correctly cites the action of the Trans-Canada Corporation under the similar Nafta trade agreement. That corporation is suing US taxpayers for $15 billion after President Obama cancelled the Keystone pipeline in light of its alleged danger to the American environment.
"Had ISDS been around when the lethal effects of asbestos were made public (after much resistance by its manufacturers), rather than shutting down manufacturers and forcing them to compensate those who had been harmed, under ISDS, governments would have had to pay the manufacturers not to kill their citizens. Taxpayers would have been hit twice - first to pay for the health damage caused by asbestos, and then to compensate manufacturers for their lost profits when the government stepped in to regulate a dangerous product" (Stiglitz).
