British and Australian trade interests in the Asian century

Now that Australia’s most famous Republican Malcolm Turnbull has defeated arch Monarchist Tony Abbott to become Prime Minister, perhaps the question of Australian independence can now come back on the agenda.

After all it was Tony Abbott’s loyalty to the throne that got him into leadership trouble in the first place. And the Royals didn’t really help him politically.

First, in January, we had the farce of an Australian Day knighthood being granted by the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the Queen’s husband, Prince Phillip that landed the Abbott in hot water and a resulting leadership spill (and a twitter hashtag #knightmare).

Also read: Australia well-set for mining boom end: PM

Soon after,  we had allegations in a US court case where Queen Elizabeth’s son Prince Andrew was named in a series of sex scandals.

This is not unknown for Prince Andrew whom was dubbed ‘Randy Andy’ by the British tabloids in the old Fleet Street days after an incident with model-actress named Koo Stark (in fact I once interviewed the famous Tokyo based Taiwanese economist Richard Koo, and wanted to lead my article with “Koo’s stark warning on the prospects of Japanese deflation.”)

But the main issue at stake is not the Royal family’s antics nor the ridiculous symbolism of an Australian Prime Minister in 2015 knighting the husband of our head of state who happens to live over 17000 kilometres away.

Also read: Turnbull's economic team has plenty to do

The issue is that when it comes to trade the British state particularly the Royal family works against Australia’s commercial interests and has always done so particularly in Asia.

You just have to look at Australia’s trading history. And Dr Sandra Tweedie’s excellent book Trading Partners provides some excellent early historic material.

Firstly, in the early days of the convict colony of New South Wales, the need of the British East India Company’s trade monopoly restricted what NSW exporters could do.

Attempts to trade with Canton (now Guangzhou were banned and even after 1813, only minor trade could only be done through Bengal in East India and the Dutch East Indies (Now Indonesia).

Illegal trade did take place in silk, tea and sandalwood, but trade couldn’t take place until the East India Company’s monopoly was lifted in 1834.

Secondly, in the 19^th century, Britain often worked against the commercial interests of the Australian colonies. For example in the 1870s Britain discouraged the growth of the China-Australian tea trade in favour of tea from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and East India.

In the 1890s, as Britain was negotiating the Anglo-Japanese Trade Treaty of 1894, Australian wool exports were ridiculed in the Japanese market by British consul and business representatives for fear they would replace British wool in the emerging Japanese market.

Thirdly, after Federation attempts by the Australian to establish an independent foreign policy and commercial voice particularly in Asia was stymied by the Foreign Office.

Also read: Team Turnbull's challenge is to fix our economic reform malaise

Australia did eventually establish a Trade Commissioner in Shanghai in 1921, for short time and later again in China and in Batavia (now Jakarta) and Japan in 1935.

But difficulties with state and business rivalries, splits between External Affairs and the Commonwealth Department of Commerce (the former being more formally ties to British Consular traditions and activities) and tensions over diplomacy and the White Australian policy harmed the efficacy of the first Australian trade offices.

Also harming the Australian trade offices was the Ottawa agreement of 1932 that imposed tariffs on non-Commonwealth countries which hurt Australian-Japan trade in particular.

In fact, in 1936, as Australian Japan trade was blossoming, particularly in wool exports (as in the 1890s), Australia was forced to “choose Manchester over Tokyo” and divert trade from Japan to Britain. Of course, Japan retaliated; there was a trade conflict with much worse to follow.

Also read: Industry bodies warm to Turnbull's ways

Fourthly, in 1957, 12 years after the war, Australia finally signed the commercial agreement with Japan but only after the easing of British imperial preference in 1956.

The Japanese Australian commercial agreement has been described by distinguished Australian economist and public servant Michael Keating: “the most significant economic policy innovation during the Menzies era.”

Indeed, the commercial agreement with Japan, symbolised the ‘first wave’ of Australia engagement in the Asian century, followed by Gough Whitlam’s recognition of China in 1972, and the Hawke-Keating economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s before we entered the ‘Asian century’ and the new millennium itself.

However, Australia’s economic engagement with the Asian century has probably occurred despite British trade activities, not because of them.

And it’s lucky we engaged with Asia, as Britain dropped us (and New Zealand) as a hot potato once it could join the European Common Market. Britain, like an independent nation, will put its own economic interests first.

In fact, even today, British trade interests have often been spruiked by none other than Prince Andrew as the UK’s special trade representative, often against Australia in markets like China. 

As Andy Scott, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)’s director of international and UK operations, told the Guardian: "He is a good ambassador representing the UK. The royal family connection is very helpful. In a market such as China the presence of someone of his stature really counts."

Don’t get me wrong this is not an anti-British tract (we economists never engage in something as low and prejudiced as Pommy bashing) as we have a lot to be grateful for from Britain in terms of our economic and democratic institutions.

Also read: ACTU wants to work with Turnbull on reform

We inherited fine institutions from the British especially free speech, democratic Parliamentary processes, rule of law and cricket.

And as the books Why Australian Prospered and Why Nations Fail demonstrate these institutions that we inherited from Britain can explain why Australian has performed well as an economy, a democracy and a society.

But Australia has always improved on our inheritance and in the 21^st century it’s time to Australianise our fine institutions starting from the top.

And as the Prince Phillip “knightmare” incident showed Australia’s constitutional arrangements are an anachronism, and need updating.

Not only would it be great to have ‘one of us’ as our head of state it would be beneficial  to have a head of state who fully acted in Australia’s economic interests and not those of a direct competitor.

Malcolm Turnbull has put his economic credentials front and centre of his new Prime Ministership.

Perhaps he could make economicadvocacy of an Australian republic a key objective of his new government.

Tim Harcourt is the JW Nevile Fellow of Economics at UNSW Australia Business School and author of Trading Places and The Airport Economist www.theairporteconomist.com