The ACTU is doing Australian workers no favours in pretending that its call for protectionism under another name is not, actually, a call for protectionism.
This call appears in an ACTU press release dated 4 June 2009 entitled A fair go for Australian industry by government purchasing will support local jobs, which states (in part):
Unions are proposing a set of National Interest Expenditure Principles to guide government spending and investment so that it maximises jobs and benefits Australian industries.
“Federal and state governments should do more to protect Australian jobs through procurement policies that give a fair go to domestic industries,” said ACTU President Sharan Burrow.
“This is not a call for a new wave of protectionism,” Ms Burrow said. “This is about a fair go for Australian jobs and industries.
“We want Australia to have world-beating industries and businesses capable of competing on a global stage. But to do so, they need support at home so they can build the critical mass to become significant exporters.
“A fair go for Australian industry and jobs does not contravene our trade obligations. It merely reflects what countries around the world are doing to ensure their own domestic industries remain strong.”
I disagree with the ACTU. This is plainly protectionism and it does the ACTU no credit to pretend otherwise. If there’s an infant industry argument, it should say so clearly. But which are the infant industries?
On the substantive point, Australians should not pay more in taxes and fees for government goods and services just because Asutralian firms provide them more expensively than other firms. The real fair go should be that Australian firms must be able to seek to provide goods and services to government on the same basis as all other firms, not to receive preferential treatment. This would be unfair to taxpayers and those using government services.
The ACTU would do better in suggesting that Australian firms should seek to provide goods and services competitively against other firms. This would benefit both consumers and workers, noting, of course, that workers are also consumers.
NB: I am a member of an organisation affiliated to the ACTU. It does not speak for me on this issue.
