WT/REG361/M/1  
 
3 May 2016  
(16-2474)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Eightieth Session   
 
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN JAPAN AND AUSTRALIA 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 5 APRIL 2016 
Chairman: Ambassador Daniel Blockert (Sweden) 
1.1.  The 80th Session of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter 'CRTA' or the 
'Committee') was convened in Airgram WTO/AIR/RTA/5/Rev.1 dated 24 March 2016. 
1.2.  Under Agenda Item D.III of the session, the CRTA considered the Economic Partnership 
Agreement between Japan and Australia, goods an d services, (hereinafter "the Agreement"). 
1.3.  The Chairman said that the Agreement had entered into force on 15 January 2015. It had 
been notified to the WTO by Japan and Austra lia on 12 January 2015 under Article XXIV:7(a) of 
the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interp retation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as an 
Agreement establishing a free trade area (document WT/REG361/N/1) and under 
GATS Article V:7(a) as an Agreement providing for th e liberalization of trade in services within the 
meaning of Article V of the GATS (document S/C/ N/787). The text of the Agreement was available, 
together with its Annexes, on the Parties' official websites. 
1.4.  The Factual Presentation on the goods an d services aspects (documents WT/REG361/1 and 
Corrigenda 1-2, dated 22 January, 9 February and 22 March 2016 respectively) had been prepared by the Secretariat on its own responsibility in full consultation with the Parties, in accordance with 
paragraph 7(b) of the Transparency Me chanism for Regional Trade Agreements 
(document WT/L/671). In addition, written questions and replies on the Agreement had been distributed in document WT/REG361/2 dated 30 March 2016. He proposed to organize the 
consideration of the Agreement by first asking the Parties and then other Members to give any 
general comments. He would then turn to the specifics of the Agreement. 
1.5.  The representative of Japan thanked th e Committee for the opportunity to present the 
Agreement between Japan and Australia for an Economic Partnership (JAEPA, hereinafter "the 
Agreement") for review and examination by WTO Members. 
1.6.  Japan's basic external trade policy had been  to maintain and strengthen the multilateral 
trading system grounded in the principles of th e WTO. It had been promoting bilateral EPAs/FTAs 
that would complement and further promote trade li beralization based on the WTO. Based on this 
policy, Japan had concluded the Agreement with Australia, encompassing such wide areas beyond the liberalization of trade in goods and services, including protection and liberalization of 
investment, protection of intellectual property, rule-making in government procurement and 
competition policy and improvement of the bu siness environment. By promoting economic 
partnership in these areas, Japan had aimed to further strengthen comprehensive economic ties 
with Australia. 
1.7.  The economic relationship between Japan and Australia was complementary. Japan's 
dependence on natural resources imported from Australia was high and Australia mainly imported industrial goods such as automobile and electric devices from Japan. It was expected that the 
Agreement would enhance business opportunities and strengthen the economic partnership 
between the two countries by liberalizing and facilitating trade in goods and services as well as by promoting investment and rule-making in other areas. WT/REG361/M/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.8.  In December 2006, the Prime Ministers of Japan and Australia had decided to start 
negotiations. The first round of negotiations had been held in April 2007. After 16 rounds of negotiations, an agreement had been reached in substance in April 2014. The Agreement had been signed by the Prime Ministers of both countries  in July 2014 when the Prime Minister of Japan 
visited Australia, and had entered into force on 15 January, 2015. 
1.9.  The Agreement established a free trade area consistent with Article XXIV of GATT and 
Article V of the GATS. In terms of trade in goods,  it would eliminate about 95% of tariffs within 
ten years in terms of two-way trade volume in 2013. Concerning trade in services, the Agreement 
provided national treatment for a broad range of sectors/sub-sectors. It was therefore consistent with these Articles. 
1.10.  The Agreement included provisions in a br oad legal framework, such as a higher level of 
protection of intellectual property, high level of liberalization in investment and trade in services, 
movement of natural persons, improvement of the business environment and cooperation.  
1.11.  Besides the Joint Committee, the Agreement had established 13 Sub-Committees in areas 
such as Trade in Goods, Rules of Origin, Custom s Procedures, TBT/SPS, Consultations for Supply 
of Essential Food, Energy and Mineral Resources, Trade in Services, Telecommunications, Financial Services, Investment, Intellectual Property and Promotion of a Closer Economic Relationship for 
the purpose of effective implementation and operation. The Joint Committee had met at the time 
of the entry into force of the Agreement, and the Operational Rules for its effective implementation had been adopted thereunder. With regard to the Sub-Committees, the Sub-Committee on Promotion of a Closer Economic Relationship had met on 8 October 2015 in Tokyo.  
1.12.  In conclusion, he thanked the Committee again for the opportunity to submit a report on 
the Agreement between Japan and Australia. The Parties were fully convinced that the Agreement had provided a foundation for further growth in bilateral trade and investment as well as for 
strengthening the economic ties between Japan an d Australia. He hoped that the implementation 
of the Agreement would contribute to further liberalization and strengthening the multilateral trading system.  
1.13.  The representative of Australia welcomed the Committee's consideration of the Agreement. 
Australia valued the Committee's work to ensure  transparency of regional trade agreements 
(RTAs) and evaluate the Agreement's consistency with WTO rules. 
1.14.  Australia and Japan had notified the Agr eement on 12 January 2015 to the WTO. The Prime 
Ministers from Australia and Japan had signed th e Agreement on 8 July 2014 and it had entered 
into force on 15 January 2015. The Agreement was comprehensive and of high-quality that built 
on Australia and Japan's long-standing and highly complementary economic relationship. Japan 
was Australia's second-largest trading partner, with two-way trade in goods and services valued at 
over AUD67 billion in 2014-15. The Agreement was already delivering new opportunities in the Japanese market for Australian exporters. 
1.15.  The Agreement had met all the criteria of a high quality agreement that promoted growth in 
goods and services trade. It was fully consistent with WTO principles and rules; it had delivered WTO-plus outcomes; and it was comprehensive and provided substantial liberalization across all sectors. The Agreement met the WTO threshold requirement that an agreement cover 
"substantially all trade" between the Parties: Australia would eliminate 100% of its tariffs on 
Japanese goods, with the exception of the specific component on used cars of AUD12,000, while 98% of Australian exports to Japan would receive preferential access or enter duty-free when the 
Agreement had been fully implemented. 
1.16.  The Agreement contained WTO-plus outcomes on services: Australia's commitments had 
included increasing the bound Foreign Investment Review Board horizontal threshold applying to 
its specific services commitments, as well as additional sector-specific commitments; the 
Agreement went beyond Japan's existing commitments under the GATS, including in key areas of commercial interest such as financial, education, legal and telecommunications services. 
1.17.  The Agreement also included measures to assist companies doing business in Australia and 
Japan, including business-friendly rules of origin provisions. For example, Australian and Japanese WT/REG361/M/1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  exporters did not need to supply a certificate of origin, but could provide a simpler origin 
certification document. 
1.18.  The Agreement included useful commitments in other trade-related areas, such as 
government procurement, intellectual property, and the temporary entry and stay of skilled 
personnel. Australia thanked the WTO Secretariat for compiling the Factual Presentation and its 
Japanese colleagues for their cooperation in preparing for the review. Australia also thanked Members for their questions and looked forward to a fruitful discussion of the Agreement and 
would endeavour to answer additional questions as they arose. 
1.19.  The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat and the Parties for their 
presentations. The United States had some additi onal questions regarding Section 4 of the factual 
presentation, on services and investment and he would submit these in writing to the Parties. 
Paragraph 4.8 of the Factual Presentation stated that the Parties had agreed to review and 
improve elements of the Agreement's investment  chapter based on Australia's commitments in 
other agreements and he asked if the Parties could provide an update on the status of the review. 
The U.S. commended the Parties on their broad ranging services commitments across sectors on a 
negative list basis and especially the small number of reservations for future discriminatory measures taken by both Parties. The Factual Presentation had however noted certain specific areas 
where both Parties had taken seemingly broad reservations or reservations that were inconsistent 
with their existing GATS commitments. For example, paragraph 4.65 of the Factual Presentation had noted that Australia's commitments in distribution services were GATS minus and had suggested that the relevant measure was not listed as a limitation in the GATS because of the 
application of GATS Article XIV. He asked Australia whether this meant that an exception 
equivalent to GATS Article XIV did not apply to  services commitments in the Agreement. The 
Factual Presentation had also noted that Japan had taken a reservation on future discriminatory 
measures in sectors "not recognized under the GATS at the time of its entry into force". He asked 
Japan if it could elaborate on the types of servic es it believed were not recognized as of 1995 and 
to explain where in the GATS it found support for this non-recognition. 
1.20.  The representative of Canada said Canada was still reviewing the response to the question it 
had submitted in writing and may come back with follow up questions if needed.  
1.21.  The representative of Chinese Taipei than ked the Parties for their written responses to its 
questions and would come back with follow up questions if needed.  
1.22.  The representative of the European Union thanked the Parties for their presentations and 
the Secretariat for the factual presentation. The EU also commended the Parties for the Agreement 
which contained several WTO plus and beyond provisions. The EU had submitted several questions 
in advance focusing on the coverage of the Agreement, investment protection, and intellectual 
property rights (IPRs) and thanked the Parties for their responses. The EU had some follow up questions that would also be provided in writing to the Parties. The first question concerned IPRs 
and the response from Australia on customs ex officio  action which had been somewhat different 
from the response given in the context of Australi a's TPR, which clarified that Australian customs 
could take ex officio  actions under very restrictive circumstances and in most cases the rights 
holder had to submit a notice via the courts. The wording of Article 16.18 of the Agreement 
seemed to be somewhat more comprehensive than as stated in Australia's reply to the EU's 
question so she asked for further clarification. A second follow up question related to the response on foreign direct investment (FDI) screening. The EU understood that Australia had implemented 
higher screening thresholds for private foreign investment from its FTA partners in sectors other 
than agriculture and agri-business. The EU encouraged Australia to harmonize its screening thresholds for FDI from its FTA partners and ot her WTO Members. The third follow up question 
related to transparency provisions for each pa rty's service suppliers. The Agreement contained 
enhanced certainty and transparency for service su ppliers for licensing requirements and domestic 
regulations and also included an Annex on recognition of qualifications requiring each party to set up one or more enquiry points and promoting mu tual recognition between professional services 
bodies. The EU wished to know for which prof essions mutual recognition talks were being 
envisaged, ongoing or completed and whether the enquiry points had been established and if so, 
would they be accessible to non-Parties also. 
1.23.  The representative of Australia said he would attempt to respond to a few of the questions 
raised but for the majority the responses would be made later in writing. With regard to the WT/REG361/M/1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  question from the United States on paragraph 4.8 of the Factual Presentation concerning the 
review of the Chapter on investment, the trigger for such a review had been met by the entry into force of the China-Australia free trade agreement on 20 December 2015. Japan and Australia were considering the obligations set out in Article 14.19 of the Agreement and a time-frame for the 
review. A written response would be provided to the U.S. question on paragraph 4.65 of the 
factual presentation. On the question from the EU concerning IPRs additional information would be 
provided in writing. On the question on transparency, his understanding was that there had not 
yet been movement on the issue of mutual recognition initiatives but a response would be 
provided in writing.  
1.24.  The representative of Japan thanked Members for their interest and questions. On the 
question from the United States on "new servic es", his understanding was that there were no 
specific new services but he would clarify further with his capital. Written responses would be 
provided for all the other questions raised as well. 
1.25.  The Chairman said that the considerat ion of the Goods and Services Aspects of the 
Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and Australia had allowed Members to clarify a 
number of questions and the Committee now concluded oral discussion of the RTA in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Transparency Mechanism. If any delegations wished to ask follow-up 
questions they were invited to forward submissions in writing to the Secretariat by 13 April 2016 and 
Parties were asked to submit replies  in writing by no later than 27 April 2016. In accordance with 
paragraph 13 of the Transparency Mechanism all written submissions, as well as minutes of the meeting would be circulated promptly, in all WTO official languages, and would be made available on 
the WTO website. 
__________