WT/REG284/2  
 
18 September 2014  
(14-5250)  Page: 1/5  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English/Spanish  
 
 FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS 
(ASEAN), AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
 The following communication, dated 18 Septem ber 2014, is being circulated at the request 
of the delegations of Australia, New Zeal and and ASEAN (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, 
Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, 
and Viet Nam).  
_______________ 
 
  This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses 
submitted. 
 Questions from the delegation of Chinese Taipei 
 STANDARDS, TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 
According to Articles 10 of chapter 6 under Free Trade Agreement between the 
associations of South East Asian Nations (A SEAN), Australia and New Zealand, Parties 
shall seek to identify trade-facilitating initiatives regarding standards, technical 
regulations and conformity assessment proced ures that are approp riate for particular 
issues or sectors and such trade-facilitating  initiatives. Those initiatives may include 
agreements or arrangements on regulatory issues, such as alignment of standards, 
convergence or equivalence of technical re gulations conformity assessment procedures 
and compliance issues. Also, Parties shall give consideration to extend such an existing 
agreement or arrangement to another Party upon request of that Party. 
1.1.  This FTA came into force after the last  contracting party, Indonesia, had notified 
completion of its internal ratification proc edures on 10 January 2012. As of now, we 
wish to know whether any agreements or arrangements regarding trade-facilitating 
initiatives on specific sectors are ongoing under the Free Trade Agreement between the 
Association of South East Asian Nations (A SEAN), Australia and New Zealand. We also 
would like to know whether any existing ag reements or arrangements among parties 
extend to another party. 
With respect to the first sentence in this question, the Parties note that AANZFTA entered 
into force on 1 January 2010 for eight Parties, and for the remaining four Parties following 
notification that they had completed their domestic approval processes. 
To date there have been no agreements or arrangements between AANZFTA Parties relating 
to the implementation of Article 10 of Chapter 6 of the Agreement. 
The Sub-Committee on Standards, Technica l Regulations and Conformity Assessment 
Procedures (STRACAP) has met once, in December 2011. 
The Parties have also participated in two economic cooperation projects related to STRACAP 
issues under AANZFTA’s Economic Cooperation Work Program (ECWP). One of these projects WT/REG284/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  involved a workshop on International Standards Best Practices (ISO/TMB Workshop) which was 
held on 18-19 February 2013 in Sydney, Austra lia, back-to-back with a meeting of the ISO 
Technical Management Board. 
Questions from the delegation of the European Union 
 
Full implementation of the agreement 
1.2.  The agreement entered into force between 2010 and 2012, depending upon the 
parties and sets different dates for its full implementation. For Singapore it is fully 
implemented since its entry into force; while  for Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, 
Australia and New Zealand it will be only in  2020; for Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR and 
Myanmar in 2025 and 2022 (2025 for tariff liberalization commitments and 2027 for 
safeguards) for Vietnam. 
How the parties justify these long implementing periods?  
 
AANZFTA’s tariff commitments are fully implemente d for most tariff lines on entry-into-force 
of the Agreement or within short timeframes. For example, tariff elimination was achieved for the following percentages of tariff lines by 1 January 2014: 
 
Australia: 96.5% Brunei: 94.0% Indonesia: 89.5% 
Malaysia: 89.2% 
New Zealand: 90.5% Philippines: 89.8% 
Thailand: 87.2% 
 
The longer implementation period therefore only applies to a small share of tariff lines, most 
of which are subject to staged reductions often resulting in tariff elimination. 
  While the implementation periods are longer for Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Viet Nam, this reflects the fact that the first three are least-developed countries (LDCs) and Viet Nam is 
a newer ASEAN member. Despite the longer transi tion periods, final outcomes involve a very 
significant liberalisation given their development status:  
Cambodia: 0% tariff – 86.2% of lines 
 0-5% tariff – 93.7% of lines.  
Lao PDR:  0% tariff – 90.5% of lines 
 0-5% tariff – 97.5% of lines.  Myanmar: 0% tariff – 86.1% of lines 
 0-5% tariff – 96.8% of lines. 
 Viet Nam: 0% tariff – 90.6% of lines 
 0-5% tariff – 95.9% of lines. 
 
These final outcomes are achieved through staged reductions, with significant reductions 
beginning early in the implementation period. 
 WT/REG284/2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.3.  Page 21, Table 3.1 ASEAN member st ates: Tariff elimination commitments under 
the Agreement and corresponding average trade. 
On the basis of the figures on the coverage of the AANZFTA after full 
implementation (2024), it seems that the agr eement will maintain certain differences in 
the tariff elimination among the parties; some of them seem to be quite high 
(Cambodia: 49.5% of exports from Australia and 30.0% of the ones from New Zealand; 
Myanmar: 70% of exports from Australia). 
While understanding that the choice could be justified by the fact that Cambodia 
and Myanmar are poor LDCs; it would be in teresting to know if the parties have 
undertaken any impact assessment that could justify this choice under an economic 
and/or development point of view. 
 
Existing bilateral trade between some AANZFTA Parties is very small and often concentrated 
in a few lines, particularly for the bilateral trade flows between the pairs of countries identified in 
the question. For these particular trade relationsh ips, the information in Table 3.1 needs to be 
used with caution. Given the figures quoted in the answer to Question 1.1 (above), significant tariff liberalisation has clearly been achieved by these countries, especially given their 
development status. The trade figures quoted in Table 3.1, because of the small size and 
concentration of current trade, the figures mentioned in Question 1.2 largely reflect the outcomes on a very small number of tariff lines. It is reasonable to expect that as the countries concerned further develop their economies, and given the very liberal outcomes achieved in AANZFTA, trade 
will grow and diversify. 
 Paragraph 3.2 Rules of origin 
1.4.  There is multiplication of parallel ru les for trade flows as for example in the 
New Zealand-Singapore trade there are 3 para llel FTAs (bilateral, P4 and AANZFTA), and 
Australia also has bilateral FTAs with some of the ASEAN countries. For RoO the traders 
can choose which one to use. 
a. Could the parties clarify whether there is  any possibility that the AANZFTA rules 
does not in full harmonise with the other agreements?  
Preferential rules of origin emerge through th e negotiation of individual trade agreements, 
and need to be looked at in the overall context of the agreement and whether or not it involves 
bilateral, regional or plurilateral partners. Where many Parties can contribute to the production of a good, the level of transformation able to be achi eved in a region may be greater than that which 
can be achieved by two Parties alone, as reflecte d in regional cumulation. Technology also moves 
on and new rules are needed to recognise evolving production processes. As a result, it is not uncommon that there are slightly different rules applied under different agreements. 
b. Should it be the case, how would the pa rties decide if they apply AANZFTA or 
other parallel agreement? 
Business is free to choose whichever Agreement that provides them with the most 
appropriate trading environment. 
Questions from the delegation of Canada 
 
Paragraph 4.14, page 43  
 
1.5.  Has any AANZFTA Parties requested cons ultations as per Article 7 of Chapter 8, 
regarding MFN treatment? If so,  is this information public? 
To date there have not been any requests from AANZFTA Parties for consultations under 
Article 7 of Chapter 8, regarding MFN treatment.   
 WT/REG284/2 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Table 4.1, page 44 
 1.6.  In its commitments on the movement of natural persons under the AANZFTA, Malaysia commit to a length of stay of 10  years for (a) specialists or expert and 
(b) professionals. For these two categori es, does Malaysia differentiate between 
independent professionals and co ntractual services suppliers? 
 
Malaysia does not differentiate between independent professionals and contractual services 
suppliers in the AANZFTA Agreement. However, it is differentiated through Malaysia’s domestic approval procedures. The visa is granted for an initial period of 2 years and can be renewed upon request based on existing domestic regulations. 
 
Questions from the delegation of Peru
1 
 
Provisions on trade in goods 
Regulatory provisions on trade in goods Standards 
Technical barriers to trade  
 1.7.  Paragraph 3.52: Will draft technical regu lations that are in line with international 
standards be notified? 
No response provided by the Parties.  
Provisions on trade in services and investment 
Liberalization commitments 
ASEAN 
Myanmar  
Table 4.9 Myanmar: comparison between the GATS and the Agreement specific 
commitments in trade in services (excluding mode 4)  1.8.  Given that Myanmar has only three se ctors on its GATS schedule of commitments, 
Peru would like to know why commitments are not undertaken in the "hotels and 
restaurants" sector (which is already committed under the GATS). 
No response provided by the Parties.  
Comments to the Secretariat or to the Parties to the RTA 
 
Provisions on trade in services and investment 
Liberalization commitments 
ASEAN 
Cambodia Table 4.5 Cambodia: comparison between the GATS and the Agreement specific 
commitments in trade in services (excluding mode 4) 
1.9.  Comments/questions regarding the schedules: 
a. Given that the "rental/leasing services  without operators", "environmental 
services", "health related and social serv ices" and "tourist guides" sectors have 
been committed under the GATS and FTA, Peru would like to know why it says (using the ( ) sign) that commitments have not been made in these sectors. 
No response provided by the Parties.  
b. Given that the "postal", "internal waterw ays" and "rail" sectors have not been 
committed under the GATS and FTA, Peru would like to know why it says (using the (√) sign) that commitments have been made in these sectors. 
No response provided by the Parties. 
                                               
1 Questions were submitted to the Parties on 1st September 2014 (three weeks, one day before the 
meeting). WT/REG284/2 
 
- 5 - 
 
   
Lao People's Democratic Republic Table 4.7 Lao PDR: comparison between the GATS and the Agreement specific 
commitments in trade in services (excluding mode 4) 
1.10.  Comment/question regarding the schedules: 
Given that the "computer and related se rvices" sector has been committed under 
t h e  G A T S  a n d  F T A ,  P e r u  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  k n o w  w h y  i t  s a y s  ( n o t  u s i n g  a n y  s i g n )  t h a t  
commitments in this sector have  not been made under the FTA. 
No response provided by the Parties. 
 
__________