Pacific wants extended labour mobility

Transcript

The Chief Trade Advisor to the Pacific Islands countries says they could be in a position to conclude the PACER PLUS trade deal with Australia and New Zealand by the end of next year.

Dr Edwini Kessie says they hope to complete the legal text by the end of this year.

This follows the most recent meeting of the region's trade ministers last month in Kiribati where concerns about the limits imposed by Australia and New Zealand on labour mobility and the access to development funding were raised.

The Solomon Star reports the lead spokesperson for the Forum Island Countries on PACER-PLUS, Robert Sisilo, saying economies are fragile and labour mobility and development assistance will make a difference.

And as Dr Kessie told Don Wiseman these elements in a PACER-PLUS deal will enable the island countries to put in place the framework that can bring regional prosperity.

EDWINI KESSIE: For now, that is the view of the Pacific Island countries, they are of the view that if we have to complete the negotiations of the legal texts by December of this year, and wrap up negotiations by the end of next, i.e. December 2015, they want Australia and New Zealand to give more commitments on labour mobility and development assistance. So these are the main points as far as the negotiations are concerned.

DON WISEMAN: So when we talk about labour mobility we're not talking about things like the seasonal jobs available, particularly in New Zealand but also Australia now, we're talking about something broader aren't we?

EK: Well, for now, we have negotiations on two tracks. So, in the context of the negotiations on trade and services, we will be talking about the movement of skilled people or semi-skilled people, like teachers, nurses, doctors, accountants. So that would come under the trade and services negotiations. But in the context of labour mobility, we will be looking at broadening the scope of the RSE of New Zealand, as well as the AWP of Australia. Because for now, they are mostly restricted to horticulture and viticulture, and the Pacific Island countries would like Australia and New Zealand to include sectors of interests like healthcare, mining in those two schemes. Australia has already extended their scheme to accommodation, agriculture, cane and cotton by very limited numbers, so the Pacific Island countries would like to see the numbers increase in those new sectors, but as I said, for most of the Pacific Island countries, they do have an interest in healthcare as well as mining.

DW: That sort of work would ideally be filled with permanent people wouldn't it?

EK: No, what we are discussing in the negotiations will be temporary movement of labour. So we are not talking about permanent. So permanent is a different thing, in fact, there is express recognition that what we are doing does not include or cover permanent migration, not at all, it's all temporary.

DW: But how do you define temporary, are we talking a number of years or still, as with the RSE, maybe six months?

EK: Six months, nine months. But obviously if Australia, New Zealand could extend it to one year or 15 months, or something like that. I mean of course if it were to be of a longer duration, that would be preferred. But we haven't yet discussed the timing yet. But this is something we would like to talk to Australia, New Zealand about.

DW: And you say that people are upset at the way in which development assistance is being applied, yet both countries would pat themselves on the back saying they're spending very large amounts of money. Most of the development dollars from New Zealand I think go into the Pacific and a large portion of Australia's do. So what change is looked for there?

EK: Well I don't think people are upset. But the Pacific countries generally are very grateful to Australia, New Zealand because these countries are the largest aid donors, so I think they are very grateful for that. But what they are saying in the context of PACER PLUS is that Australia, New Zealand, had committed to providing them with assistance to implement their obligations under PACER PLUS. But the Pacific island countries argument is that if they are to be able to take advantage of PACER PLUS, then the supply side constraints, which have prevented them from taking advantage of agreements such as SPARTECA will have to be addressed. So really the negotiating issue here is whether or not development assistance should go beyond help in the countries who need to implement their obligations, or should it actually also extend to help in the countries to address things like infrastructure and other problems, which actually prevent them from taking advantage of trade. So that is the negotiating issue and New Zealand has tabled a compromise proposal, which was well-received by the countries, so we hope that we can get agreement around the elements provided by New Zealand.

DW: So if you have agreement within a year or so, what will it mean for the island countries in terms of economic development?

EK: Clearly, a trade agreement by itself would not bring about economic development, but it provides a basis. So the hard work would then have to begin. It would be up to the countries to adopt the right domestic policies in order to take advantage of the PACER PLUS agreement. So we need to be very clear that the agreement will certainly provide opportunities, but it would also require countries to adopt the right domestic policies and this is where the development assistance package becomes very important. Some of these countries are very fragile - Kiribati, Tuvalu, and other poor countries. They cannot take advantage of agreement unless they are assisted. So that is why development assistance, in terms of Australia, New Zealand providing them with broader trade related assistance is important. Because without that, frankly, it would be very difficult for most of these countries to take advantage of PACER PLUS.