Transcript
HUGH GOVAN: In the context of this leaders meeting there is a lot of disappointment in general with the way the leaders meetings are going these days. We are under a new approach to regionalism the "Pacific Plan" is history and now supposedly the Framework for Pacific Regionalism which was meant to be more inclusive, have good governance human rights etc. in there. They have opened avenues for civil society to interact with the leaders and last year West Papua was put on the agenda and it is on again this year. So there is some satisfaction with that. However the issues of West Papua and also the new membership of France is not something that is debated in countries with civil society but it has happened in this last leaders meeting seeming to forget the reasons why they weren't there in the first place. And also problems with West Papua, you know the human rights issues there which I think most people would agree is a serious concern and should be dealt with but somehow the leaders have not been able to move that agenda at all forward. So in that context it will probably be naive to expect a major turnaround in the leaders' decision on the PACER-Plus trade deal at this meeting. But the concerns remain and I think the population, the people at large, should be concerned that no proper impact assessments have been done the leaders are making the decision without any facts before them. It is hard to believe that a good deal has been struck if we don't know what the potential negatives and positives or good and bad sides of this deal are.
DON WISEMAN: In the communiqué from the Pacific Islands Forum summit they do say that there were some assessments organised by the office of the chief trade advisor.
HG: Yes indeed well we demanded strongly for nearly two years, well for longer than that some of us. But two major letters have gone to the leaders and the trade ministers requiring independent and comprehensive impact assessments across all sectors of poverty, food security, natural resources and so on. We stated this very strongly in an opportunity for consultation at Christmas. And the trade advisor reacted by commissioning small, but hardly independent as it was under his office, impact assessments. Unfortunately that impact assessment's credibility is slightly of concern as well as it was already, they had already been advising leaders they should conclude the existing text. In other words it is not a surprise that the impact assessment such as it is seems to be more validating the position of the trade advisor rather than opening up any new discussions. Having said that if you look at the people that were consulted and involved in that it doesn't involve most of civil society organisations that are concerned. The major ones. And so again it would be hard to take it very seriously. I would like to add that civil society, or one NGO in particular, has commissioned there own impact assessments and those have been endorsed by 50 plus NGOs and lots of individuals. And that impact assessment hasn't been, as far as I am aware, been considered by any of the trade officials or the leaders.
DW: They know about it though?
HG: Yes it was presented to them in the Christchurch meeting.
DW: So it would certainly seem that the way things are going the trade deal will be finalised before the end of the year. Fiji is not going to be there and PNG is not going to be there either but there will be a deal put in place, driven along by Australia and New Zealand. So what will civil society do, then?
HG: We are heartened by the fact that Vanuatu has also expressed some concerns and we are hoping that other ministries and other countries will begin to look at this more seriously and expect a reasonable discussion at least in the national governments and maybe the parliaments. That sort of discussion would, and indeed consultations with civil society, would always be better informed with independent impact assessments. In other words there is not very much that you could discuss about a trade deal in terms of its bare and naked text. So hopefully these countries will think surely we can look at the implications of this in normal language and assess it across our sectors. The reason for signing this yet is very obscure we cannot see why the rush. Why not get a better deal by getting better information on at least being sure that you are getting the best deal based on this independent information. I am not sure who benefits from rushing this through.
