Australia, New Zealand have a Moral obligation To listen to Fiji, PNG on their views About PACER Plus

The PACER Plus Implementation Unit (PPIU) yesterday released its inaugural Strategic Plan 2022-2025 which provides the public with the PPIU’s overarching mission and activities.

The Strategic Plan was endorsed by the PACER Plus Joint Committee which consists of representatives of the PACER Plus parties.

But Fiji and Papua New Guinea were missing from the list. A PPIU statement said the plan was developed on the substantial work undertaken by PACER Plus parties in accordance with PPIU’s foundation documents.

PACER Plus has been described as a “landmark” and “hybrid” development and trade deal that will benefit Pacific islands, Australia and New Zealand.

It is a regional development-centered trade and investment agreement aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals.

The agreement is designed to support Pacific Island countries to stimulate economic growth by becoming more active partners in, and benefit from, regional and global trade.

It sounds good but do the final details match the perceived reality? That’s what Fiji has been talking about. The concept is okay but is it weighted in favour of New Zealand and Australia or the Pacific Islands?

Nine countries are currently parties to the Agreement: Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Vanuatu is expected to join soon. Its Parliament has ratified the agreement. That leaves Fiji and PNG out in the cold.

In 2017, controversy broke out after then Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo was quoted by the media saying Fiji and PNG elected not to sign the agreement.

In fact Minister for Trade Faiyaz Koya had asked that the meeting be deferred. He said Fiji was excluded from the PACER Plus trade negotiations and it did not pull out as claimed.

He said the meeting was organised quite abruptly, maybe at the behest of Australia and New Zealand and unfortunately because of “our local commitment we could not make it that day and we had asked them to defer the meeting”.

He also questioned how the negotiations could conclude without Fiji’s participation.

Mr Koya said Fiji wanted further negotiation on the two critical issues of Infant Industry Development and Most Favored Nation that will have an implication on Fiji’s development aspirations.

Fiji, he added, had always seen PACER Plus from a positive view point as another avenue that could contribute towards reaching our development goals.

Fiji could not allow PACER Plus or any trade agreement to limit its development aspirations by taking away the flexibility to support its new and emerging industries and limiting its aspirations to strengthen South South trade relations.

Koya said Fiji’s policy space, and its sovereignty was critical to us and any concessions made under a trade agreement needed to be carefully assessed and must ultimately contribute to our development plans.

He said it was in Fiji’s best interest to ensure PACER Plus was a long lasting agreement which was predictable and on a sustainable basis that led to export and private sector growth and development among PACER Plus parties.

Koya says Fiji has always emphasized that for this to be feasible, development dimension should be at the core of PACER Plus and the final outcome should reflect this by reflecting the different levels of development between Australia and New Zealand on one hand and the Pacific Island countries on the other.

Fiji believes the negotiations are still open and Fiji will continue to dialogue with Australia and New Zealand to ensure that they have a truly development friendly PACER Plus that will stand the test of time and will successfully integrate the Pacific into the global trading sphere.

These are legitimate concerns.

But it appears Australia and New Zealand are not listening and pushing on.