PACER Plus Joint Committee Charts Strategic Path Forward For Pacific Trade And Development
Press Release: PACER Plus
HONIARA, Solomon Islands – The Eight Meeting of the PACER Plus Joint Committee concluded on Tuesday 6 May 2025 in Honiara, Solomon Islands, bringing together senior government officials from Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Chaired by Ambassador Collin Beck, Permanent Secretary of the Solomon Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade, the meeting provided a crucial platform for Parties to review progress, reimagine the future of PACER Plus, and strengthen regional economic integration.
Ambassador Beck underscored the significance of PACER Plus in navigating today's uncertain global trade environment.
'PACER Plus was envisioned as a pathway toward deepening economic integration across the Blue Pacific Continent by creating a predictable, rules-based trade environment and unlocking targeted development assistance through the PACER Plus Development and Economic Cooperation (DEC) Work Programme,' he said. 'This meeting was an opportunity to reflect on the past, reimagine the Agreement's next phase, and ensure it delivers meaningful impact for our people.'
The DEC Work Programme, funded by Australia and New Zealand, is a cornerstone of PACER Plus implementation, designed to support Pacific Island countries in building trade capacity, strengthening industries, and overcoming barriers to economic growth. It provides targeted assistance in areas such as export development, trade facilitation, and skills training, ensuring that Pacific Parties can fully benefit from regional and global trade opportunities.
The meeting approved high-level strategic priorities for the next DEC Work Programme cycle (2025-2030) commencing the work towards confirming arrangements required for continuation of the DEC Work Programme beyond 2025. Discussions emphasised the need for a sharper focus on export development, value chain strengthening, reducing shipping and logistics costs, and targeted skills development. The meeting also highlighted the importance of private sector engagement, digital trade as a key economic driver, and the alignment of strategic priorities with measurable 2030 targets under the Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning and Adaptation (MELA) Framework.
Parties reaffirmed PACER Plus as a vital mechanism for regional economic integration, in line with the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. Expanding membership remains a key priority, with commitments to advocate for new members to join the Agreement.
Australia and New Zealand provided updates on the current internal governance reviews required to confirm resourcing for the next DEC Work Programme (2025-2030). Ambassador Beck expressed gratitude on behalf of all Parties: 'We deeply appreciate the ongoing commitment of Australia and New Zealand to PACER Plus, both through their current funding and their expressed support for the next phase. Their partnership is instrumental in ensuring Pacific nations can harness trade for sustainable development.'
The Joint Committee reaffirmed Parties' commitment to the rules-based multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organisation at its core. A joint statement was adopted as follows: 'We affirm our commitment to a transparent, non-discriminatory, and open rules-based multilateral trading system which provides certainty and predictability for businesses, builds trust and confidence among consumers, and underpins the growth of international trade and development. In the face of mounting challenges, including disruptions in global supply chains, rising protectionism and climate change, our collective commitment to these principles and the maintenance of trade openness is more crucial than ever,' the statement read.
Parties also pledged to uphold a special and differential treatment for Small Island Developing States, ensuring tailored support to safeguard food security, livelihoods, and effective participation in global trade.
The outcomes of this meeting will guide the next phase of PACER Plus, ensuring it remains responsive to the needs of the Pacific and delivers tangible benefits for the region.
© Scoop Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
'Go woke, go broke' is no longer true. Socially aware capitalism is the future of corporate responsibility
By Peter Underwood* of Ben and Jerry's ice cream is displayed on a shelf at a grocery store. Photo: AFP / Justin Sullivan Analysis: The phrase "go woke, go broke" is often used by critics of corporate social responsibility. It implies that companies face a binary choice: embrace progressive values or pursue profit. But this dichotomy between "wokeness" and capitalism is both simplistic and increasingly out of step with corporate reality. Many companies are learning to navigate a middle path. They are embedding social, environmental and ethical considerations into their business strategies - not in spite of profit, but because it contributes to long-term value creation. Understanding this shift - and the backlash to it - is fundamental to grasping modern corporate responsibility. Our research examines the growing tension between evolving "woke" agendas within firms and the enduring demands of shareholder value, known as "shareholder revanchism". We explore this dynamic using academic Archie Carroll's Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility , where economic responsibility forms the foundation for higher legal, ethical and philanthropic obligations. Ultimately, we argue for a reassessment of the prevailing emphasis on shareholder profit and short-termism. Directors should adopt a more balanced approach when pursuing profit and discharging their duties. The idea that directors must choose between shareholders and stakeholders - between profit and progressive causes - has deep roots in law and economics. For decades, shareholder primacy prevailed in global business. This principle was famously reinforced in court decisions such as the 1919 Dodge v Ford case in the United States. Henry Ford was found to have a duty to operate his company in the interests of shareholders. It was later popularised by Milton Friedman , who declared that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits". A stark example of this tension came with the ousting of Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of food giant Danone in 2021. Faber was accused by some shareholders of failing to "strike the right balance between shareholder value creation and sustainability". His critics felt he focused too much on people, the planet and social responsibility and not enough on profits. Yet corporate law has begun to evolve. In the United Kingdom, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 still requires directors to promote the success of the company "for the benefit of its members". But the legislation also requires directors to consider employees, suppliers, communities and environmental outcomes. This model - sometimes termed "enlightened shareholder value" - preserves profit as the goal, while recognising that broader factors shape how it is achieved. New Zealand's brief experiment with section 131 of the Companies Act 1993, which allowed directors to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, is another example. The amendment was introduced under Labour before being revoked by the National-led coalition. Canada has a similar provision. The phrase "woke capitalism" was popularised in a 2018 New York Times opinion piece about corporate activism. It originally described how firms were supporting progressive causes to attract younger, values-driven consumers - not out of altruism, but to strengthen brand appeal. In 2019, the US Business Roundtable - a group of 200 top chief executives - rejected shareholder primacy in favour of stakeholder governance. It pledged to run companies for the benefit of all stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders. This followed a 2018 letter by Larry Fink, chairman of BlackRock, calling on firms to pursue a broader purpose and serve all their stakeholders. Yet corporate activism carries risks. Nike's campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick boosted sales but sparked backlash over the American football player's support for Black Lives Matter. Bud Light's brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney triggered boycotts. Gillette's "toxic masculinity" campaign alienated many long-time customers. Jaguar's sales plunged after a rebrand was criticised as pandering. Even ice cream company Ben & Jerry's has clashed with parent company Unilever over the limits of its political expression. These examples show that progressive branding is not always rewarded - but nor is silence. Companies now risk criticism for failing to speak out on issues their stakeholders care about. It is clear consumers are increasingly attuned to corporate social responsibility. A central challenge in reconciling these tensions is the definition of profit itself. Traditional corporate law treats profit as the ultimate end of business activity. But scholars such as Edward Freeman argue that profit is a precondition for continuity - not an end in itself. As he puts it, profit to a company is like red blood cells to a human: essential for survival, but not the purpose of life. Under this view, profit becomes cyclical. It is a means of sustaining activity, not a fixed destination. This may seem open ended, but it avoids the fiction that companies ever reach a final "profit goal". Firms pursuing social impact are not abandoning capitalism; they are redefining it. In a polarised climate, "woke capitalism" remains a lightning rod. But the supposed conflict between ethics and economics is a false one. Courts, lawmakers and firms alike are recognising that social responsibility can support, rather than undermine, long-term value. Directors are no longer torn between duty and decency. They are navigating a broader understanding of corporate success - one in which "wokeness" and capitalism are not opposing forces, but interdependent elements of a sustainable business strategy. *Peter Underwood is a senior lecturer at University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach homeowner to court as she refuses to leave
By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo: Hannah Bartlett / NZME A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner, after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on 21 May. Previous owner Terina O'Connell said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media, asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on 22 May to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on 6 June, when O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 - tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home... tomorrow afternoon... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media, in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments, while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years and had not consented to the mortgagee sale, and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time", and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship, if forced to leave. Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners, and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said, while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that, while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, 9 June. Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter, when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks were responsible lenders. They typically had dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty, and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said, in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." - This story originally appeared in the Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
The Panel with Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman Part 1
Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Chris Wikaira and Leonie Freeman. To begin, it's D-Day for the US tariffs, and New Zealand has been hit with a 15% rate. This is a rise from the originally proposed 10%. Kate Acland, chair of Beef and Lamb NZ, joins the panel to unpack how much of an impat this will have on exports. Then, they revisit speed humps in Manurewa: are there too many, or is their presence justified? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
