Transcript
ADAM WOLFENDEN: Well, I think the collapse of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, for Australia and New Zealand, has presented them with another way to try and frame PACER Plus. For them PACER Plus, I fear, that they will use it it as a way to signal to the rest of the world that they still believe in multi-lateral trade deals and they still want to see a regional agreement, like PACER Plus, go ahead, if for nothing else to say that they still believe that this is a sign that Australia and New Zealand are still open for business.
DON WISEMAN: Let's say that that is the New Zealand and Australian approach and up to now I think there's been no mention of it since the outbursts from [US President] Donald Trump. But one of the things that NZ and Australia could look at - is to perhaps moderate some of their positions relative to what they expect from Pacific Island countries - given the criticism that's come from Donald Trump about the bad deal that America was getting in the TPP?
AW:What we're seeing is that may not necessarily be the case. The Australian assistant minister [of Trade], Keith Pitt, was in Fiji only a couple of weeks ago and it seemed like for Australia the priority was to conclude PACER Plus - they said that 'eight years' negotiations is substantial' and it's their intention to push forward in concluding those negotiations. Now that rhetoric has changed a lot since saying 'this is a development agreement, this is about the Pacific' and so it seems like Australia's position is shifting to basically saying: 'You've had eight years - it's now time to sign up' and from the Fiji perspective, they still have significant concerns about their ability to protect and nurture their infant industries, which I think most people would argue is a key component to any development pathway and yet Australia and New Zealand don't seem to be shifting on that position and instead are turning around and putting the pressure on Fiji and other Pacific nations to hurry up and sign up to PACER Plus.
DW: There's a very strong probability that both Fiji and Papua New Guinea won't sign up. So what sort of a deal is it going to be?
AW: Well, I guess to paraphrase President Trump, you could call it a 'dumb deal' at the same time, because, the two biggest economies in the region, both in terms of size, but also in terms of Fiji, you look at the way Fiji is an economic hub for the region - to take those two countries out of the deal really sort of undermines a lot of the rhetoric and purpose that Australia and New Zealand have framed PACER Plus as being. You know, they were saying it was a regional agreement about regional integration - it's hard to have regional integration when you are missing the biggest economy and the regional economic hub so I think there is a huge question mark as to whether or not those initial claims as to what PACER Plus was about are even being met without PNG or Fiji.
DW: To an outside observer, it does seem like there is actually nothing in this for Australia and New Zealand. Why are they so adamant that they want to get this signed?
AW: Well, I think it is naive to think that there is nothing in it for Australia and New Zealand. If you look at the trade figures between, particularly between PNG and Fiji and Australia and New Zealand, they do have significant commercial interests involved in these countries - so they definitely have that aspect to gain from PACER Plus. There's the geopolitics of PACER Plus as well. PACER Plus negotiations were allegedly triggered from the Pacific negotiating a trade deal with the European Union. So the whole premise of PACER Plus has been founded on this belief by Australia and NZ that they should have first crack at Pacific markets and they should receive the best treatment so they want to maintain, I guess, their economic influence over the region.
So there is a definite interest for Australia and NZ to see PACER Plus concluded on terms that they are happy with. Now, that aside, there's also those other reasons of saying - there's the ideological approach - they want to see free trade, from their definition, in the region. But what PANG and I think a lot of others have said for a long time is that that's not the reality of the region. This textbook ideology of free trade is not the Pacific's reality and we're starting to see that reflected in the Pacific. You can see from the Vanuatu Development Plan - they're starting to really frame and reconceptualise how trade deals should be considered and it speaks to saying that any new trade agreements have to demonstrate tangible benefits in the national interest. Now, I would say that PACER Plus would fail that test and I think that's the sort of conversations and positions we're starting to see pop up more and more in the region.
