A New Zealand

Since Australia’s first free trade agreement (FTA) with New Zealand in 1983, Bilateral and Multilateral FTA’s have been a great advantage and focus in securing economic prosperity for Australia. Australia’s two-way trade in goods and services was A$616 bn in 2012. Australia has seven FTAs currently in force with New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, US, Chile, ASEAN (with New Zealand) and Malaysia. Together, these countries account for 28% of Australia’s total trade, which displays the great benefit of bilateral FTAs to the Australian economy. Additionally, there are four bilateral FTA negotiations currently in place, two of which are substantial trading partners; China, being Australia’s largest export market (A$78.7 bn) and Japan, being Australia’s second largest export market (A$49.8 bn). The Japanese Free Trade Agreement has been negotiated, and will be a great benefit to the Australian economy, especially the agricultural sector, for example tariffs on beef

reaction should be precise and undemanding. TPP is not a general or an undersized trade contract, it maintains a vast amount of significance and benefits to the countries implicated. The agreement should possess equal advantage to all the associated countries in satisfying their internal domestic policies. For instance, the TPP consists of agreements which develops the precision of regulatory upbringing for small and average businesses to function across the area. The discrepancy is a prompt that the trade agreement is multifaceted and is also a motivation. Apart from other agreements the TPP is shaped to lower import tax and quotas, and to even out legal and regulatory principles in areas like the environment, intellectual possessions, employment civil rights and state-owned

These export trade agreements, in the next two decades, will create thousands of available jobs, and also boost the GDP by approximately $25 billion, which benefits consumers, households and economic growth. There are several strategies under the new trade agreement that targets partnership and bring benefits:

Two of the well-known theories are absolute advantage and comparative advantage theory. Absolute advantage trade theory is when the producer is able to input a small amount to produce a good or service. It is also recognized to attain better through the acts of low-cost production. By this I mean, an example of absolute advantage is when a small country like China manufacture or produce a good and participate in the ability to have low labor cost on that item. Meanwhile, comparative advantage is the action of a country being able to produce or manufacture a good/service at a lower cost than another country. When having the theory of comparative advantage country that produces an item has an advantage over the company that has a desire for that specific item. Their ability to produce the item locally gives them a cheaper source of the ingredient causing them to offer their product cheaper than other companies. The Trans-Pacific Pacific Partnership is an agreement that has threatened to extend restrictive intellectual property laws across the world and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. Countries involved in the TPP are Australia, Peru, Japan, Canada, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, and Mexico. Basically, all the countries along the Pacific Ocean signed the agreement on February 4, 2016. The trade agreement is said to makes trading easier, adds intellectual property protection, and raises labor environmental standards in all countries involved, but there is no set person to write the rules and regulations to the agreement along with no one to make sure they are enforced. If the U.S doesn’t ratify the agreement, China can step in and continue to dominate and control the market. I believe if done right TPP can bring world domination for all countries to work together in creating one huge market to live by. Regional trading groups are

After the controversial TPP fast track legislation was passed by Congress, the world woke up to the devastating effects of other "trade agreements."

Trans-Pacific partnership opens a new free market field with minimal trade restrictions. Members are expected to conduct trade within the jurisdictions of the member states with much

of markets, including the auto industry, and in the spotlight, the dairy and beef markets.

Its economy grew by 2.4% last year. The benefits for such nations due to FTA frameworks based on fair, agreed and transparency goes a long way. The current parties of the TPP cover 11.2% of the world population; combines 4 of the world’s top 20 economies with Australia, with an overall combined GDP of 12.4 trillion. The TPP would result in 19 significant FTA with new nations for Australia. Australia exports energy products to TPP countries worth around $38B. the TPP eliminates 98% of the tariff, eliminates tariffs on iron ore, nickel and copper to Peru, it assists small and medium businesses to reap the benefits of the TPP. It also includes environmental and domestic benefits such as agreeing to cut down on wildlife trafficking, reducing subsidizing the fishing industry so as to reduce overfishing, combatting corruption by aiming towards increased transparency, further promoting foreign investment in Australia by increasing the threshold from $252M to $1094M for all TPP countries. The ISDS, an important factor of the TPP is a matter which should be dealt with extreme care. Australia may actually desire ISDS to aid Australian traders in the territory of TPP nations where they can resolve disputes. Agreeing that some problems of ISDS may need to be negotiated, to ensure that the plain packaging incident law and other laws which prioritize lives over profits can never be trifled with. To

Around the world there is a growing system of free trade agreements (FTAs). High-quality free trade agreements can have a significant part in assisting global trade liberalisation. There is considerable discussion concerning a possible FTA between Australia and China. If a fair trade agreement occurred between Australia and China then tariffs would be expected to be eliminated on almost all trade between the two countries. An FTA between the two countries would involve taking into consideration the domestic income and employment impacts on each sector. It would be essential to ensure that non-tariff agreements applied to both counties and did not contradict that trade and economic benefits of tariff elimination. An FTA should go beyond each country’s commitments in the World Trade Organization (WTO) by addressing, to the extent possible, non-tariff measures and increasing transparency in goods trade.

As mentioned earlier, the TPP is a major potential free trade agreement between twelve of the Pacific Rim countries. The countries are Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, The United States, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore (Freil, Sharon, Gleeson, Thow, Labonte, Stuckler, Kay, and Snowdon 1). Interestingly enough, this agreement is the technical successor to the P4 agreement that was initialised in 2006 (Elms 29). This agreement was held between Chile, Brunei, New Zealand, and Singapore. In 2008 the U.S. showed large interest in joining this agreement giving spark to a new agreement that has enticed other Pacific Rim countries (Elms 29). Taking charge of this new agreement the U.S. has laid down most of the TPP 's foundation to create an agreement that should allow for a

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an economic free trade agreement currently being negotiated between New Zealand and 11 other Pacific Rim nations (Wyber & Perry, 2013). It seeks to reduce trade restrictions including tariffs, create shared guidelines for intellectual property rights, sanction codes for environmental and labour regulations, and create an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system (Fergusson, McMinimy & Williams, 2015). The implications of the TPP are immense, encompassing nearly 40% of global gross domestic product (GDP), with the potential to affect various aspects of a nations’ domestic policy environment (Wyber & Perry, 2013). On-going formal mediations have taken place since 2008; however public interest in the ramifications of the agreement has increased as negotiations have proceeded (Wyber & Perry, 2013). This is likely a result of its growing media coverage, which has raised public awareness to the issue. The private nature of TPP negotiations has evoked widespread controversy and debate throughout the media (Jairath, Johnstone & Moore, 2015). While confidentiality amid trade agreements is common, some consider that the TPP has been concealed in specific secrecy, giving more influential power to industries involved (Wyber & Perry, 2013).

Australia and New Zealand has been in the trade business since a long time and aim at increasing the economic and social benefits through increase in

New Zealand is a very stable economy, which majorly relies of international trade. Castles, Miller & Ammendola (2005, p. 215) argues that, the country has a market economy, and as a result, it has been able to interact with several countries through trade. The country’s political economy has been enhanced and made stable through various strategic factors it possesses. These factors of its political economy are in three dimensional systems: economic system, the political system and lastly the legal system. The three systems work hand in hand with each other through various interrelations that have made New Zealand’s political economy stronger thus managing to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). A political economy can be

(New Zealand Government, 2015, para. 1). Prime Minister John Key, the main advocate for change, officially launched such discussion last year in a public address he gave at Victoria’s University in Wellington. One of the main points presented in Key’s (2014) speech were his views on how he believes Moreover Key (2014) also argued (para. 88). So far the Prime Ministers proposal failed to inspire the public. On the contrary, it has produced a substantial amount of controversy. The main arguments seem to revolt around the issues of cost, process, national symbol, history and change. This paper will look more closely into each of these aforementioned public differences and close with my own view concerning this debate.

At the core of both domestic and international policy formulation is the underlying issue of the financial enrichment of the state structure and the individual. It is undeniable that significant transformation of global economic norms has occurred since the advent of the neoliberal age in the mid 1970s, and the subsequent promotion of government non-intervention, deregulation and trade liberalisation. New Zealand’s is no exception to this trend, and our transition from British colony to independent constitutional monarchy with a unique set of values, ideologies and national identity has paved the way for our nation to branch out into the newly expanded global market. Indeed, the development of New Zealand’s domestic economy and trade policy has undergone a seismic shift which has drastically altered our national patterns of trade since 1929.