Transcript
JOSEPH MA'AHANUA: I think a lot of the points which the PANG group has raised are quite misleading. When one talks about reaching a multi-lateral agreement there is always a sense of everyone coming together. It therefore is quite misleading to say the PACER PLUS will take away sovereignty. Because as a matter of fact the agreement itself does allow for government to regulate and at the same time to deal with domestic policies which will abet some of the areas of concern which PANG has raised. And to also say that it infringes on Human Rights such as education, health, the right to food and so forth it puts to question whether they really know what they are saying.
KOROI HAWKINS: What about in terms of analysis that PACER PLUS will be unbalanced and will be more in favour of the large economies of Australia and New Zealand?
JM: We have for a start used the commitment which countries have made at WTO (World Trade Organisation - to which six of the twelve Pacific Island nations are members) as the base line from which we launched the negotiations. So it will be unrealistic for anyone to on the one hand say that what we have achieved in terms of concessions and flexibilities from Australia and New Zealand would be of less benefit to the countries. In fact I think we have, over the process of negotiations, actually gained flexibilities which are way above the kind of conditions we have as at present with WTO in terms of the multi-lateral trading regime.
KH: And by WTO I am assuming you mean the World Trade Organisation is that right?
JM: That is correct.
KH: Yes and so...
JM: You will also in that connection note in the case of the PACER PLUS it is not just an ordinary FTA. It actually is a development friendly arrangement.
KH: Can you give a specific example of that as opposed to a normal trade agreement?
JM: A normal trade agreement would normally provide reciprocal rules but which does not offer a development package that would help the other party that requires assistance. Now in the case of PACER PLUS we have an agreement which will facilitate the movement of goods between Pacific Island countries and Australia and New Zealand. And at the same time we have Australia and New Zealand also engaged with us in a conversation where we will identify areas of need in terms of capacity, particularly supply side constraints where we will be able to hopefully agree at the level of resources which they could provide.
KH: So we are talking about things like upskilling and make sure you, Pacific Island countries meet Australian and New Zealand standards and things like that?
JM: Absolutely, absolutely. We are looking at capacity building helping quarantine and customs organisations and countries meet requirements and when I talk about supply side constraints this would mean building the infrastructure probably roads, wharves facilities that will abet the cross border movement of goods between Pacific island countries and Australia and New Zealand.
KH: Another thing that PANG is quite vocal about is it claims that there has not been an independent impact assessment of PACER PLUS.
JM: How could you foresee that those negativities would actually come when you are even still in the process of negotiating an agreement. I think what we have achieved so far in terms of the negotiations for a PACER PLUS are those which have been positive. You know having transitional period for liberalisation of trade in goods which are much longer than what is offered through WTO. And where we do not meet certain requirements of course we have the development dimension which will address this. And there are numerous other positives which have been gained through the discussion which makes PACER PLUS an agreement which could serve the Pacific island countries well.
KH: And along those lines come December and the final ceremony for PACER, by all current information and standings Solomon Islands do you think will be one of the parties to sign on?
JM: I wouldn't preempt what comes at the end in terms of of whether we sign and ratify or not but I can also tell you that everything that we have done up until now has been approved and we have always worked within the mandate of government. So if there was to be a direction that I saw we may take it could be a positive one.
