The Office of the Chief Trade Advisor says concerns about the PACER Plus trade agreement being unbalanced are unfounded and inaccurate.
Transcript
The Office of the Chief Trade Advisor says concerns about the PACER Plus trade agreement being unbalanced are unfounded and inaccurate.
The latest talks on the free trade agreement conclude today in Samoa but has faced calls from the Pacific Network on Globalisation that they be suspended and the negotiation texts published.
The Chief Trade Advisor to the Pacific Edwini Kessie says the NGO's hardline approach does not help the discussion on developing an effective platform for free-trade in the region.
Dr Edwini Kessie says a meeting to engage with NGOs and allow them to voice their concerns about the agreement is being planned for later in the year.
EDWINI KESSIE: We welcome views from a broad spectrum. We have done our best to engage the NGOs. But I think they also need to be very constructive. I've read some of the reports they think they are saying the agreement is unbalanced. That Australia and New Zealand would be making promises whereas the countries would undertake legal and there's no basis for that statement. Because Australia and New Zealand would also be undertaking binding legal commitments even in the area of tariffs. So the argument that the agreement is unbalanced is without any basis, so I think the NGOs have to be more constructive. If they do have genuine concerns obviously we would like to address them but some of them I think they are just headline grabbing news.
KOROI HAWKINS: Right, one of the other things they are saying is that it is possible for individual pacific countries to unilaterally implement the things that come under PACER Plus and therefore just as beneficial for countries to undertake things by themselves rather than having a regional agreement.
EK: I would strongly disagree with that view, the reason why, you know for small countries like many Pacific Island countries and other developing countries there is the view of the international investor community tends to have the view that most of our countries we basically constantly reverse our policies. And as such there isn't investor confidence in our economies. Now having an agreement such as PACER Plus or any other agreement would confidence to investors that those commitments would not unilaterally change. And I think the idea that countries can implement this autonomously it is true they can do that. But the degree of perception would be different amongst investors because they would know that at any time you know countries can always reverse, but if it is part of a trade agreement which is legally binding commitments will stick. So that is the advantage of having an agreement such as PACER Plus.
KH: If and when this agreement is finally signed and completed, what can Pacific Islanders the public, businesses, the private sector expect to see as real changes on the ground in their countries?
EK: I think I should make it quite clear that the conclusion of the agreement would not automatically bring benefits. At the end of the day for PACER Plus to have any positive impact in the countries the countries would have to adopt the right policies the framework. The idea that PACER Plus would automatically benefit the Pacific Island countries, I do not think, I do not subscribe to that view. What it offers countries is a platform, an environment within which they can actually implement policies with the assistance of Australia and New Zealand for Trade and Investment to flourish, so I think with the PACER Plus it would provide them with a platform to expand trade and then attract investment and if they do that then I believe that PACER Plus would really assist these countries going forward.
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.