A new outbreak of protectionism in Tasmania

During the past month a particularly virulent disease has broken out in Tasmania, one which was thought to have been more or less permanently eradicated during the 1990s.

It’s called ‘protectionism’.

It comes in various forms, but all of those forms have a common feature: namely, forcing consumers or businesses to pay higher prices for what is inevitably a more restricted range of goods, in order to support the continuing existence of a comparatively small number of businesses in a sector of the economy which has managed to convince governments that it is more important than others.

Needless to say, proponents of ‘protection’ never spell that out: but that’s nonetheless what it always entails.

Here in Tasmania, the outbreak of ‘protectionism’ has taken the form of suggestions that Tasmania should usurp the Commonwealth Government’s acceptance of a ruling by the World Trade Organization, and continue to ban the sale in Tasmania of apples from New Zealand.

This outbreak has been tri-partisan among Tasmania’s three political parties. The Tasmanian Liberals, despite ostensibly favouring ‘free trade’ and ‘choice’, want to continue the ban on the import of New Zealand apples. Tasmanian Labor wants to defy its Federal colleagues, whose decision it was to accept the “umpire’s ruling” that Australia’s ban on the import of New Zealand apples had no valid scientific basis. And the Greens, who make no pretence at believing in ‘free trade’, but who when it comes to climate change insist that we should all ‘accept the science’ on that subject (as I do), want to over-rule ‘the science’ when it comes to the import of apples.

Australians, and in particular Australian farmers, have long battled against the protectionist agricultural policies of the European Union, the United States and Japan. The main victims of those policies are of course consumers and taxpayers in those countries, who are obliged to pay higher taxes and prices in order to keep uncompetitive farmers (who often use environmentally damaging amounts of fertilizers) on the land. But these policies also deprive Australian farmers of large amounts of potential export income.

We certainly don’t help the cause of Australian farmers when we pursue the same protectionist policies ourselves, as we have done with bananas earlier this year (at considerable cost to Australian households) and now, if Tasmania’s politicians have their way, with apples. Under WTO rules, New Zealand would be able to ‘retaliate’ against Australia if Tasmania persists in defying the WTO’s ruling – and it can pick the form that retaliation takes. And since a slightly higher proportion of Tasmania’s exports go to New Zealand than of Tasmania’s, it would be open to New Zealand to retaliate in ways that were particularly damaging to Tasmania.

The WTO hasn’t said that Australia can’t apply strict protocols, including vigilant inspections, to guard against the introduction of pests and diseases: and it’s clear that Quarantine Australia has continued to do that.

Nor have either the WTO, or the Commonwealth Government, said that eating New Zealand apples should be compulsory. The WTO has simply ruled, and the Commonwealth Government has accepted, that it should no longer be illegal.

If Tasmanians, or other Australians, don’t want New Zealand apples to gain a foothold in this country, then they are free not to buy them. But they shouldn’t be denied the choice, now that the ‘umpire’ has ruled that there’s no valid scientific basis for doing so – any more than Australians should be denied the choice of buying cars made in Korea, clothes made in China, or refrigerators made in New Zealand.

First published today in The Examiner