An economist says while the PACER-Plus trade agreement allows Australia and New Zealand to strengthen their influence in the region, there are also benefits for smaller Pacific states.
Eleven nations have signed up so far and are now sorting out their domestic laws to fit the agreement's terms, which are framed around prosperity and economic development.
The agreement only needs eight nations to ratify, with no set timeframe for ratification.
But despite being involved in negotiations, two of the biggest island economies, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, are yet to sign and critics say the agreement is unfair.
Dr Wadan Narsey, a former Fiji economics academic, now adjunct professor at Swinburne and James Cook Universities in Australia, told Sara Vui-Talitu the fact other small island states have given it the nod, means the deal will bring gains.
Trade ministers from Pacific Island Forum countries, including Australia and New Zealand, meet in Christchurch to discuss PACER plus.
Photo: RNZI
Transcript
DR WADAN NARSEY: I think if you look at the agreement as a whole, it might not be as good as it could have been had PNG and FIJI join because they have the largest markets in the region as far as Australia and New Zealand are concerned. But for smaller countries there are smaller benefits . So one something is better than nothing. Secondly is that once you have such an agreement in place there is a lot of scope to building on it in the future and there are many possible benefits in regards to labour mobility in all those areas where Australia and New Zealand have periodic labour shortages in fruit picking and all that. And third I think that Australia and New Zealand wil be encouraged into give more goodies to all these Pacific countries cos they might want to drive home the lesson to PNG and Fiji that look this is what you are missing out on. In a way it happened earlier you know if you look at New Zealand, so they started that labour mobility scheme like 10-15 years ago as I had a little bit of a hand in that kind of thing and then Australia was like 5-6 years late in building up on it and coming onto that scheme. So Australia and New Zealand will be encouraged to keep smaller countries more and that might encourage PNG and Fiji to re-think their refusal to sign PACER-plus.
SARA VUI-TALITU: And there is increasing influence by China and Indonesia?
WN: Well the thing is for Australia and New Zealand lets face it the Pacific is huge and without any doubt China and Indonesia have really extended their influence. China, well it is a rising superpower, actually it is a superpower and is one of the largest economies in the world now, and Indonesia is doing all it can to quash Papua independence movement and they are doing that by buying off all the Pacific Island countries who you'd nomally expect to give their support to West Papua and that setback in New York is a horrible thing for the Papua people right? But for Australia and New Zealand by strengthening their ties with these smaller countries they are in a way countering their influence with China and Indonesia and these small countries they do matter. If you look at where they arein the Pacific there are all these marine resources that are there, not just sort of fisheries and all that, but also all the underwater mineral resources which are going to become more and more important in the future and so the long term benefits for Australia and New Zealand to have all these small countries tied a little bit closer to them with PACER-plus is important.
SV: Critics who are still urging caution and one sensitive point is around customary land. Do you have a view on that?
WN: I dont think that customary land is under any threat. I mean well if Australia and New Zealand do act tough on this agreement and they insist on opening up the markets for the Pacific Island countries then any small manufacturing they may have might well disappear although as an economist I must say that most of these protected industries probably do more harm than good as they would never survive on their own feet. So the industry argument doesn't apply to them all it means is that as smaller consumers in the Pacific end up paying more and more for lower quality goods than if they had a totally free market. So there are some costs in there but there are benefits as well too for the smaller countries and for Australia and New Zealand. I don't think customary land is in any way under any threat as in Australia and New Zealand, especially in New Zealand as they recognise all too well the importance of maintaining the sanctity of ownership.
SV: Well there is this argument around climate change being more of a pressing issue for all small island states, than a trade agreement. What is your view on that?
WN: Well this is an area that Australia and New Zealand have been very very weak and they have really lagged behind. If you look at small atoll countries like Kiribati Tuvalu and Marshall Islands. I mean if the ocean water rises half a metre, well people are talking about one metre, but cos quite often at high tide the water is really lapping away up at land level, then if it rises more on to the land level, they are gone. So what does it cost for Australia and New Zealand to basically say to them look we are here as a backstop for you and a place of last resort for resettlement? But they haven't come out with such statements and I think in part for Australia, the whole illegal refugee problem is so massive that they don't want to give out any international signal out there that yeah here is a place where any climate change refugees can come. But one should not underestimate the value of PACER-plus for approaches like this to be done in a quiet and confidential manner to Australia and New Zealand and people from Tuvalu and Kiribati. I have spoken about it previously and written about the fact that there are a lot of mutual benefits to be had by Australia having much closer relations with Tuvalu and Kiribati.
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.