Page 26 - IB MAY 2017

The Region
Big brothers get deal they always wanted

by Adam Wolfenden
THE regional free trade agreement,
known as PACER-Plus was concluded
last month in Brisbane, Australia. As
usual, such events are met with great
fan-fare and congratulatory press re-
leases. New Zealand called the deal
“historic”, the Office of the Chief Trade
Advisor (OCTA) described it as a “land-
mark” deal, Australia went on to say
that the increased trade will be “gen-
erating growth, jobs and raising living
standards”.
Overshadowing all the praise was the
elephant in the room, or more precisely
the elephant not in the room. Papua New
Guinea withdrew from the negotiations
in 2016 citing the proposed agreement as
a ‘net loss’ for PNG. Fiji, who had been
harbouring concerns about the protec-
tions for its infant industries and their
ability to pursue better trade deals with
other countries, was also not in atten-
dance apparently not for want of trying.
The absence of the two biggest Pa-
cific Island economies cuts through the
hyperbole of PACER-Plus exposing the
ugly fact that if the two most developed
Island countries aren’t able to benefit
from the agreement then how will those
with less capacity.
PACER-Plus has never been about the
Pacific despite the reassurances of Aus-
tralia and New Zealand. In 2002 when
PACER, the framework that preceded
PACER-Plus, was agreed to an Australia Skeptics say PACER-Plus will beneit Australia and NZ more than it will Pacific island nations. Photo: PNG Ports
official described it to the Australian Par-
liamentary Joint Standing Committee on cific – Labour Mobility and Development a range of risks to health which appear
Treaties as “a practical or economic inter- Assistance – have been met with non- to outweigh the small prospects of health
est of ours was to ensure that, whatever binding commitments from Australia benefits arising from the agreement and
trade liberalisation occurred between the and New Zealand leaving no guarantee that whilst some health exceptions are
island countries, if it were extended to that the few areas of interest will actually included; these are generally not strong
other states such as the United States, deliver. Yet the Forum Island Countries and in most cases will not be sufficient
Japan or the EU, it did not disadvantage are taking the burden of legally binding to prevent disputes over health-related
our trading position”. These words were commitments at the expense of their abil- issues. Further to this the Right to Food
reiterated by New Zealand last month ity to shape their economies to meet their will be undermined due to the threats to
at the conclusions of negotiations when development needs. local production from increased imports
Trade Minister Todd McClay boasted that Last year the “Defending Pacific Ways and investment rules that favour foreign
the final outcome “future-proofs our of Life: A Peoples Social Impact Assess- investors. Finally the report highlighted
access” to Pacific markets for New Zea- ment of PACER-Plus” report highlight how all these impacts are also gendered
land exporters whilst “helping develop the very real threats that PACER-Plus with women bearing the burden of loss
[Pacific] export economies.” contains. The report highlighted that of livelihoods and increased caring re-
The New Zealand minister may be PACER-Plus will undermine the right to sponsibilities.
trying to frame PACER-Plus as a ‘win- regulate of Pacific government’s, remov- Despite being sold as a ‘trade and
win’ for all parties but the fact is that ing their ability to shape the economy to development agreement’ there is little in
the deal is loop-sided against the Pacific. the interests and needs of Pacific people. PACER-Plus that will support the Pacific
The two areas of key interest to the Pa- It also found that PACER-Plus presents to develop. Fiji’s Trade Minister, Hon.

26 Islands Business, May 2017