A- A A+

Finagling free trade in the Pacific

Jemma Williams |  15 August 2013

Map delineates Pacific Island region relative to Australia and New ZealandNegotiations towards a free trade agreement involving Australia, New Zealand and 14 of our neighbouring Pacific Island countries are underway this week in Port Vila, Vanuatu.

The agreement, known as PACER-Plus, aims to enhance development through greater trade in the region. However, the negotiations are being carried out on unequal playing field, with Australia and New Zealand leading the talks which involve largely small, underdeveloped island nations, five of which are listed by the United Nations as among the least developed countries in the world. Recognising this, Australia and New Zealand are funding the negotiations as well as providing assistance to Pacific Island countries to implement the agreement.

Despite insisting that promoting development in the Pacific is the priority, Australia stands to gain more than most of the Pacific Islands, which already have tariff-free access for their goods into Australian markets under previous trade arrangements. Among the issues expected to be discussed in Port Vila is trade in services, which would mean Australian companies, providing services from banking to health and education, would have unrestricted access to Pacific Island markets, and Pacific Island governments would have less rights to regulate them.

The logic for including services in trade agreements is that established private service providers, in this case based in Australia or New Zealand, would be enticed into Pacific markets through deregulation, and Pacific Island nations would benefit from increased access to the service they provide. Indeed, the entry of international telecommunications companies into a number of these island economies did improve mobile phone coverage and connectivity, including in rural areas.

However, opening up all service 'markets' in vulnerable economies poses many threats. The inclusion of services in a free trade agreement restricts the regulation of any service which could be considered to have any commercial activity or where there are one or more service providers. This deregulation and entry of private service providers is often followed by pressures to privatise essential services like water. In countries like Argentina and Bolivia private companies have raised prices and have not invested in infrastructure in unprofitable areas.

Additionally, services are typically negotiated on what is known as a 'negative list basis' — meaning that all services are included unless they are specifically excluded. This means that all services now and in the future would be subject to these rules even in light of new environmental or social problems or new research. This would undermine governments' policy space to address pressing development concerns like climate change, which is already affecting Pacific Island countries.

Many Pacific island nations are already struggling to provide essential services such as water, health and education. Having access to many of these services is a basic human right. Implementing policies to ensure the equitable distribution of essential public services throughout all areas of the country is one of the essential responsibilities of government. Liberalising trade in services could hinder the ability of government to fund or provide local or government-owned services to their most vulnerable populations.

Healthcare is a typical example. Foreign healthcare providers are likely to establish themselves in wealthy areas, profiting by charging high prices to those who can afford it. They would not service rural populations where the majority of people are unwaged and survive on subsistence agriculture. Governments would still have to fund or provide health care to the most vulnerable populations. Additionally, the stark inequalities in healthcare provision could lead to a 'brain drain,' where the most qualified professionals seek work in clinics which serve the wealthy.

Many Pacific Island nations question what they would gain from PACER-Plus. Earlier in the year Papua New Guinea's trade minister said PNG would gain nothing from the negotiations and he would consider withdrawing. The islands are pushing for the inclusion of temporary labour mobility rights so that their citizens will be able to gain visas to work in Australia and New Zealand, as well as more development assistance. Neither of these issues is normally included in free trade agreements, but they are being used as bargaining chips for Pacific Island nations to concede access to Australia and New Zealand access to their services markets.

If the Australian and New Zealand governments really want to achieve development in the Pacific, it is difficult to understand why they are pushing these islands to reduce their barriers to trade in a manner which could restrict their achievement of human development goals. 

Jemma Williams headshotJemma Williams has an honours degree in international studies specialising in international development. She currently works for the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network.


Jemma Williams


Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

Well argued Jemma. Marie

Marie O'Connor ssgs 19 August 2013

You outline the dilemmas in this situation very clearly. Marie.

Marie O'Connor sgs 21 August 2013

Similar articles

Military rulers bring Egypt into disrepute

Andrew Hamilton | 19 August 2013

Anti Morsi protest march, 28 June 2013Disrepute and disaster are twins. If suspicion persists that football players were encouraged to take drugs whose long term effects are unknown, it would lead parents to discourage their children from playing the game at senior level, with incalculable commercial consequences. It is a much more serious thing to bring a nation's polity into disrepute. And that sadly is what the military rulers of Egypt have done.

Australia's human dumping ground Nauru

Walter Hamilton | 07 August 2013

Hand dropping crumpled ball of paperWelcome to Nauru. Land area: 21 square kilometres. Permanent population: around 10,000. Chief economic activity: human dumping ground. Nauru has joined PNG in the Cohort of the Willing — willing, that is, to take dollops of Australian money to hide away an Australian problem. Substitute 'asylum seekers' for 'convicts' and it recalls the way Australia was used by Great Britain in the 18th century to dispose of a British problem.

Civil liberties in a grave new world

1 Comment
Bill Calcutt | 09 August 2013

Strings of data with the word 'Security' looped around themSince the turn of the millennium several major technology-enabled developments have significantly altered the balance between national security and civil liberties. In Australia, the hyper-politicisation of national security finds voice in the discourse on the issue of border security, turning a complex humanitarian and policing challenge (asylum seekers arriving by sea) into an enormously controversial and expensive imbroglio.

Australia complicit in PNG's Bougainville blight

1 Comment
Ellena Savage | 02 August 2013

This political map shows the of North Solomons or Bougainville Province, which is an autonomous province of Papua New Guinea, that is geographically located in the Solomon Islands, forming a part of the Bismarck Archipelago, southwest of New Ireland.Even more disturbing than PNG's poverty and gender-based violence is its military and police human rights record. Evidence of abuses in the form of a military blockade, massacres, rape and torture during the Bougainville Crisis of the 1990s are well-documented. The history of this crisis reveals PNG as incapable of caring for its most vulnerable citizens due to systemic corruption.

Corruption and other stumbling blocks to PNG solution

Walter Hamilton | 26 July 2013

Yellowed map of PNGA constitutional challenge in PNG to the resettlement agreement could quickly destroy any disincentive value as far as people smugglers are concerned. Under the country's constitution, foreigners may not be detained unless they have broken the law in entering the country. Since the asylum seekers are being sent there against their will they cannot be held to have entered illegally.