RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG185/M/1 
12 June 2007 
 (07-2467) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Forty Sixth Session   
 
  
CONSIDERATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THAILAND AND 
AUSTRALIA, GOODS AND SERVICES  
Note on the Meeting of 14-15 May 2007
 
Chairman:  Mr J. Metcalfe (United Kingdom)  
 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2993. 
2. Under Agenda item B.II the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA or the 
Committee) took up consideration of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Thailand and 
Australia (TAFTA), goods and services.   
3. The Chairman  noted that the TAFTA had been signed by Thailand and Australia on 5 July 
2004;  it had entered into force on 1 January 2005.  On 5 January 2005, the Parties had notified the 
goods and services aspects of the TAFTA to the WTO under Article XXIV:7(a) of the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Ar ticle XXIV of GATT 1994, as an agreement forming 
a free-trade area (WT/REG185/N/1), and under GATS Article V:7(a) as an agreement providing for 
the liberalization of trade in services within the me aning of Article V of the GATS (S/C/N/311).  The 
text of the Agreement had been circulated to Members as document WT/REG185/1, and was also available, together with its Annexes, on the Parties' official websites.   
Goods Aspects
 
4. On 15 September 2005, the Parties to the TAFTA had requested the Secretariat to prepare a 
Factual Presentation on their behalf in accordance with the Guidelines on Procedures to Improve and 
Facilitate the Examination Process (document WT/REG/W/15/Add.1).  The Factual Presentation 
(document WT/REG185/3 dated 12 March 2007 and WT/REG185/3 Corr.1) had been drawn up by 
the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility in full c onsultation with the Parti es.  Written questions 
and replies on the goods aspects of the TAFTA had been distributed in document WT/REG185/5 
dated 10 May 2007.  He proposed to organize the consideration of the goods aspects of the TAFTA 
Agreement by asking first the Parties and then ot her Members to give any general comments.  The 
Committee would then turn to the specifics of the Agreement using the Factual Presentation, 
document WT/REG185/3, to guide the debate.  He  proposed to go through the Factual Presentation 
section by section, and then through the questions and replies document. 
5. The representative of Thailand  considered it an honour to have two Regional Trade 
Agreements (RTAs) which it was involved in, am ong the first RTAs considered by the Committee 
under the new RTA Transparency Mechanism (TM).  Th ailand reaffirmed its strongest support for a 
rules-based multilateral trading system under the WTO and reiterated its support for strengthened 
WTO rules, disciplines and mechanisms on RTAs, in order to enhance their transparency and WT/REG185/M/1 
Page 2  
 
  contribution to the multilateral trading system.  Thailand had engaged in trade liberalization for 
decades, both at the multilateral and regional leve ls.  It had acceded to the GATT in 1982 and was a 
founding Member of the WTO.  In the region, Thailand was a founding Member of ASEAN and APEC, among others.  Thailand belie ved that freer and fairer trade could further promote economic 
growth and national well-being, a nd that pursuing such goals through RTAs could be done in a 
manner that was complementary to the multilatera l trading system.  With these convictions, and 
spurred on by the significant rise in the number of RTAs in the world in the late 1990s, Thailand had embarked on negotiations with othe r potential partners who also shared the objective to promote and 
facilitate trade and investment between the nego tiating parties to an RTA.  Thailand’s RTA 
negotiating strategy was based on the following princi ple considerations:  first, comprehensiveness, 
covering trade liberalization in goods, services and i nvestment, as well as the elimination of NTBs;  
second, reciprocity, taking into account the distinct levels of economic development of each party, 
and providing appropriate flexibility, such as a longer liberalization period to accommodate necessary 
adjustments;  third, WTO consistency;  fourth, to  promote cooperation between the parties in order to 
facilitate trade and development; and,   finally, to incorporate mechanisms to prevent and/or address 
the negative effects on domestic industries, such  as AD/CVD measures, safeguards, and a dispute 
settlement mechanism. 
6. The TAFTA was the first RTA Thailand had signed outside the Enabling Clause.  In other 
words, it was the first RTA signed with a develope d country.  It was also the first bilateral RTA 
signed by Thailand with such comp rehensive coverage, including:  tr ade in goods and services;  SPS 
measures;  food standards;  business mobility;  inv estment;  industrial standards;  IP and competition 
policy;  e-commerce;  and government procurement.  There were several reasons for signing an RTA 
with Australia.  There were good longstanding re lations with diplomatic relations officially 
established on 19 December 1952;  both were found ing members of APEC and the Cairns Group;  
Australia was an ASEAN Dialogue Partner;  as well as Australia’s geographical proximity to 
Southeast Asia.  Trade with Australia was importa nt for Thailand, both in terms of exports and 
imports, which were also complementary in natu re.   Both countries had shared objectives, as 
captured in Article 102 of the TAFTA Agreement, na mely, to liberalize trade;  stimulate trade and 
investment; build upon WTO commitm ents;  establish cooperative activiti es;  improve efficiency and 
competitiveness of their economies;  and support the wider APEC liberalization and facilitation 
process.  He highlighted some of the important aspects of the TAFTA.  The TAFTA covered substantially all trade in goods and services betwee n the Parties and did not raise protection against 
non-parties.  The TAFTA added value to the WTO framework.  It included provisions on investment, 
an area where there were only limited WTO disciplin es.  In relation to government procurement and 
competition policy, the TAFTA Joint Commission ag reed that detailed negotiations in both areas 
should commence.  Further negotiations on services were also planned.  Article 1905 provided the 
opportunity for any other Member of the WTO, any other State or separate customs territory to accede 
to or associate itself with the TAFTA Agreement.  Provisions on cooperation had been included in a 
number of chapters, namely, SPS, TBT, e-commerce, competition policy, and IP.  The TAFTA had been beneficial to Thailand.  According to Thaila nd's trade statistics, since the TAFTA’s entry into 
force on 1 January 2005, bilatera l trade had increased from US$4.66 billion in 2004 to US$7.74 
billion in 2006.  Thailand’s total exports to Au stralia amounted to US$4.35 billion in 2006 with 
US$2.74 billion worth or 62.25 per cent of these exports  receiving preferential tariff treatment.  Being 
an agricultural exporter, Thailand was also satis fied with progress delivered by the TAFTA on SPS 
issues, with the establishment of an Expert Group on SPS Measures and Food Standards resulting in 
closer coordination between the Parties in consu lting and solving any obstacles to exports arising 
from SPS measures in each Party.  As a result, agri cultural trade flowed more freely between the RTA 
Parties.  Thailand looked forward to further deep ening and broadening its economic relationship with 
Australia through the built-in agenda of the TAFTA  and other frameworks, especially ASEAN and 
APEC.  Finally, Thailand thanked the WTO Secr etariat for its high quality input and support in 
relation to the Factual Presentation and written quest ions and responses and Members for their interest  WT/REG185/M/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  and questions.  Thailand also thanked Australia  for its friendly coordination and kind assistance 
throughout, and for the TAFTA. 
7. The representative of Australia  welcomed the CRTA's cons ideration of the Thailand – 
Australia Free Trade Agreement.  The TAFTA was one of four FTAs Australia had finalized, 
underscoring the importance it placed on its tradi ng relationship with the Kingdom of Thailand.  
Australia was committed to the WTO and the multila teral trade architecture that came with it and 
therefore placed a high priority on ensuring that its FTAs were consistent with the WTO rules, 
supportive of WTO objectives and WTO plus.  Member s were aware of Australia’s policy on FTAs.  
Australia would only negotiate an FTA if it belie ved it would deliver substa ntial economic benefits, 
enhance broader economic and foreign policy interests and, very importantly, be consistent with its 
WTO commitments and be comprehensive in scope.  The TAFTA certainly lived up to these aims.  
Australia was proud of the many distinctive featur es of the TAFTA.  The TA FTA was Thailand’s first 
comprehensive FTA with a developed economy and Australia’s second FTA with an ASEAN 
member, after the agreement with Singapore.  The TAFTA ensured greater access for Australian and Thai goods, enhanced prospects for services tr ade and investment, improved the regulatory 
environment and promoted increased business mobility.  It provided for the complete liberalization of 
two-way trade in goods over time and the libera lization of conditions affecting services trade and 
investment.  As from entry into force, 83 per cent  of Australia’s total tariff lines were duty free for 
Thai products and 83 per cent of trade by volume entered duty free.  Within 5 years, by 2010, the Agreement would allow for duty fr ee access for Thai goods entering Australia covering 96 per cent of 
tariff lines and by current calculations 99 per cent of  volume of trade.  As regards tariff commitments, 
over half of all Thailand’s tariffs had been elim inated immediately after the TAFTA entered into 
force.  Tariffs not eliminated immediately would be phased down and virtually all Thai tariffs and 
other restrictions would be scrapped by 2010. 
8. Sectorally, Australia had been granted improved access for Thai automotive products, 
textiles, clothing and footwear, steel, and plast ics and chemicals, subject to tariff phasing 
arrangements.  The TAFTA also included steps aimed at promoting cooperation and improving the 
commercial climate in a wide range of areas such as intellectual property rights, competition policy, e-
commerce and industrial standards.  The TAFTA included monitoring and review mechanisms, in 
particular, a commitment to negotiate further liber alization in such areas as services and government 
procurement.  Australia had a very good working re lationship with its Thai colleagues in capital and 
in Geneva as was evident not only from cooperation at the meeting, but the entire negotiation of the 
Agreement.  Australia warmly welcomed the assist ance and the attendance of its Thai colleagues at 
the meeting.  Australia also thanked the WTO Secretar iat, particularly the team in the Regional Trade 
Agreements Section for their hard work;  he unde rstood that it had been difficult with the new 
Mechanism, but the Secretariat's assistance in comple ting the Factual Presentations had been valuable.  
Australia believed that the Factual Presentations th at had been produced by the Secretariat were a 
valuable resource for non-members as well as me mbers of the TAFTA.  They provided a clear, 
streamlined summary of the Agreement, includ ing statistics on the tariff line and trade volume 
liberalization over the life of the Agreement.  Aust ralia was very pleased that the TAFTA was the first 
Agreement subject to consideration under the term s of the General Council Decision of 14 December 
2006 on a Transparency Mechanism for Free Trade Ag reements.  As Members knew, conclusion of 
the TM was a real achievement of the RTA Rules Ne gotiations.  Australia and Thailand had agreed to 
subject this Agreement to a Factual Presentation we ll before the conclusion of the terms of the TM, 
based on the improved transparency and objectivit y inherent in such do cuments.  He thanked 
Members who had submitted written questions on the Agreement, in accordance with the terms of the 
TM and looked forward to any further questions Members might have as they worked through the 
text.  Australia would endeavour to answer as many  questions and to provide as much information as 
possible to Members during the course of the Comm ittee’s consideration of the agreement and would 
also be happy to come back to any questions during the course of the meeting of the CRTA.  He looked forward to a fruitful discussion with Members. WT/REG185/M/1 
Page 4  
 
  9. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Secretariat and the Parties for providing a 
comprehensive and very well crafte d Factual Presentation.  She also thanked the Parties for their 
responses to the questions and their helpful presentati ons.  The United States believed that the Parties 
to the TAFTA had negotiated an RTA that would lib eralize trade between them and expand economic 
opportunities in both countries.  It also believed th at the Agreement supported a perspective that the 
United States had also pursued in its FTAs, na mely that developing countries could open their 
economies and negotiate comprehensive agreements th at eliminated tariffs on substantially all trade 
and, as a result, as Members had heard from Thailand,  they could benefit from such liberalization. 
10. With regard to section II.B.1, "National Tr eatment and Market Access Provisions of the 
Agreement, Import duties and charges, and quantita tive restrictions", the representative of the 
European Communities  (EC)  raised two follow up questions regarding the response to question 12 in 
document WT/REG185/5.  She asked the Parties to c onfirm whether the first three columns indicated 
the value of extra items (for calendar years 2004, 200 5 and 2006), and the last column the percentage 
change in value from 2005-2006.  In addition, she sought  clarification on the last four columns of the 
table provided as no headings were visible.  With regard to question 13, she asked for the volume and 
value of Thai exports of motorcars and air-conditio ners in 2004, 2005 and 2006, the increase (in value 
and volume terms) since the entry into force of the TAFTA, the percentage of tariff lines they 
represented, and the percentage of total Thai exports to Australia (in value and volume terms) they 
accounted for. 
11. The representative of Australia  replied that the last four columns (for 2004, 2005, 2006) 
related to Australian dollars while the final colu mn showed the percentage growth between 2005 and 
2006.  The figures were in calendar years.  
12. The representative of Thailand  agreed to provide statistical tables on the volume and value of 
Thai exports of motor cars and air conditioners in 2004-2006 and the increase in value and volume 
terms since the entry into force of the TAFTA as well  as the percentage of tariff lines and of total Thai 
exports to Australia they accounted for.  Thaila nd would also provide this information to the 
Secretariat so that it could be reflected in the minutes  and for others to consult.   An important statistic 
showing the positive impact of the TAFTA on exports  of motorcars and vehicles was that between 
2004 prior to the TAFTA and 2005 after entry into force, exports of motorcars and vehicles had risen 
by 304 per cent.  
13. Under Section II.B.2, "Rules of Origin" the representative of Chinese Taipei  asked for further 
clarification on the provision allowing some inputs from developing countries to be counted as 
originating products for a period of 20 years.  He ask ed why there was a time li mit for a provision that 
was very development-friendly a lthough he believed that it might be because the status of a 
developing country might change during that time.   In response, the representative of Australia  
confirmed that the commitments under Article 403(2) of the TAFTA were due to expire in 2025.  
There was no intention to revi sit the clause at the moment. 
14. On Section II.C.2, "Safeguard Mechanisms" the representative of the European Communities  
had follow-up questions regarding the reply provided  to question 18.  Regarding the application in 
2005 and 2006 of safeguards on the products menti oned by the Parties she asked whether they could 
indicate the percentage (in value and in volume te rms) of total Australian exports, each of these 
products accounted for.  The representative of Australia  replied that the relevant documentation would 
be provided to the EC.  The document included da ta by trade values but it was not possible to 
calculate trade volumes because the units used su ch as litres, kilogrammes, and cartons, differed 
depending on the product.    
15. With regard to the reply for question 19, th e representative of the European Communities  
asked what would be the main elements to be amen ded in the review of the special safeguard regime  WT/REG185/M/1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (SSG) in 2008.  She asked whether Australia would consider extending its rights to invoke such 
measures in 2008 even though the re view of the SSG regime was to take place in the same year.  In 
addition, she asked how the Parties considered the safeguard measures set out in Chapter 5, including 
the SSG regime, to be consistent with thei r obligations under the WTO Agreements.  The 
representative of Australia  confirmed that Australia would cease to use the safeguard mechanism after 
2008 in line with its commitments under the Agreemen t.  On safeguards, he explained that if a 
safeguard measure was triggered under the TAFTA, the tariff rate applied was the MFN rate.  So, at 
the very least there was a liberalization of that  tariff line under the Agreement.  Thus there was 
absolutely no question about WTO consistency. 
16. On Section E.5, "Relationship with other Agreements concluded by the Parties", the 
representative of the European Communities  had a follow up question on government procurement.  
In the response to question 20, she had noted that pursuant to Article 1502 and as stated by the Parties 
in document WT/REG185/5, the Working Group of gove rnment officials recommended that the Joint 
Commission commence bilateral negotiation on govern ment procurement.  The Parties had indicated 
that they were consulting about the timing of these negotiations.  Given the Joint Commission's 
recommendation to commence negotiations in early 2006, she asked if the Parties could indicate 
whether a likely date for these negotiations was bein g considered.  If not, she asked when the Parties 
expected to reach such an agreement, what would be the scope and whether it would be restricted to 
the provisions set out in Article 1503 or whether it was to be broadened.  The representative of 
Australia  replied that Article 1503 set out the genera l principles which would guide the future 
negotiations and the intention was to conclude a detailed government procurement chapter with 
substantive commitments. 
17. The representative of the European Communities  asked whether the Parties had agreed a 
timetable for the commencement of detailed negotia tions on services, investment, business mobility 
and competition issues.  If not, when did the Parties e xpect to reach such an agreement given that the 
Joint Commission recommended such negotiations take place in early 2006.  The representative of 
Thailand  replied that it was expected that the second  Joint Commission, tentatively scheduled for 
October 2007, would detail the way forward for negotiations on investment, business mobility and 
competition issues.   
18. The representative of the European Communities  asked for an indication of the outcome of 
the working group on market access is sues.  The representative of Thailand  replied that the working 
group had not yet met, but progress was expected following the second Joint Commission meeting.  
At the first Joint Commission meeting, the areas of interest for both Parties had already been 
expressed in terms of market access.  Australia 's priorities were for improved access for five 
horticultural products and the restoration of marg ins of preference across a range of some other 
products, while Thailand sought improved access for te xtiles, clothing, and footwear products.   
19. The representative of Thailand  noted that the on-going negotiations, reviews, and the built-in 
agenda had been held up due to domestic politics.  But Australia and Thailand were working on a 
second Joint Commission meeting in October 2007 to discuss the built-in agenda and the items where 
a specific time-frame had been envi saged.  The work group on mark et access had been formed but 
had not yet met.  Thailand would also provide responses to the statistical questions from the EC but needed some time to respond.   
Services Aspects
 
20. The Chairman  then turned to the services aspects of the TAFTA.  On 15 November 2006, the 
Parties to the TAFTA had requested the Secretariat to prepare a factual presentation of the services 
aspects of the Agreement in accord ance with the Guidelines on Pro cedures to Improve and Facilitate 
the Examination Process (document WT/REG/W/15/ Add.1).  The Factual Presentation (document WT/REG185/M/1 
Page 6  
 
  WT/REG185/4 and Corrigendum 1 dated 21 March 2007)  had been drawn up by the WTO Secretariat 
on its own responsibility in full cons ultation with the Parties.  In  addition, written questions and 
replies on the services aspects of the TAFTA ha d been recently distributed in document 
WT/REG185/5 dated 10 May 2007.  As before, he proposed to organize the consideration of the 
services aspects of the TAFTA by first asking the Pa rties to make any general statements and then 
other Members to give any general comments.  The Committee would then turn to the specifics of the 
Agreement using the Factual Presentation to guide the debate. It would then go through the questions 
and replies document. 
21. The representative of Thailand
 noted that the TAFTA covere d substantially all trade in 
services between the Parties.  As there was no a priori  exclusion, all services sectors were covered 
and subject to negotiation for progressive libera lization.  The TAFTA added value to the WTO 
framework.  It included additional services commitm ents to those provided for under the GATS, as 
well as some provisions on investment.  Article 808 required the Parties to foster cooperation in 
various services, for instance, education, healthcare and tourism, and to promote the facilitation of 
temporary entry of business people.  Further negotiations on services were planned on the issues set 
out in the Services Side Letter to the Agreement.  These were:  financial services;  telecommunication 
services;  emergency safeguard measures;  possi bility of eliminating management needs test 
requirements for Australian intra-corporate transfer ees and contractual services suppliers;  possibility 
of extending the initial period of work permits gran ted to Australian intra-corporate transferees;  
possibility of extending the initial period for Austra lian business visitors without an APEC Business 
Travel Card; and, a qualification evaluation scheme for Thai masseurs and Thai massage therapists.  
Due to systemic difficulties associat ed with the collection of services data, demonstrating the benefits 
to Thailand from trade in services under the TAFTA was not as straightforward as for trade in goods.  
In general, the TAFTA held a lot of potential for growth of Thai services exports, including investment.  The TAFTA allowed 100 per cent Thai ownership in various businesses such as:  legal 
consultancy;  landscaping;  auto repair;  and Th ai language, massage and cooking schools.  Australia 
had also made GATS plus commitments such as in: business services; telecommunications;  
education;  financial;  and transportation services.   These commitments, as well as the built-in agenda 
for further services negotiations, held a lot of promis e for future expansion of mutual trade in services 
and investment.  At the end of 2005, Australia’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Thailand was 
around US$636 million, mainly SMEs in metal products ;  light industries, including electronics and 
parts, textiles and agro-based products.  During the same period, Thai investment in Australia was 
US$160 million, involving machinery and parts a nd anti-corrosion metal packing.  This was 
supplemented by investment in small businesses, and w as not captured by these statistics.   Thailand 
looked forward to further deepening and broadening its economic relationship with Australia through 
the built-in agenda of the TAFTA, as well as through the ASEAN and APEC frameworks. 
22. The representative of Australia
 thanked Thailand for its comments.  Australia's opening 
statement in respect of goods also referred to some services issues.  He did not have much to add to 
those comments or to those made by Thailand other than to highlight the importance Australia placed 
on further negotiations on services and the TAFTA's in-built agenda.  Australia looked forward to 
advancing its commitments by working clo sely with the Government of Thailand. 
23. On Section II.E.1:  "Liberalization Commitmen ts:  Thailand", the representative of the United 
States  said she had a general comment and question.  She thanked the Parties for their responses to 
written questions but had concerns about whether the TAFTA showed s ubstantial sectoral coverage of 
Thailand's services market.  The Parties' response to a question about the adequacy of Thailand's 
services market opening was that all services markets were subject to future liberalization, but this 
sounded like a "rendez-vous" clause.  She wondered if the Parties could be more expansive a bout any 
on-going negotiations and forecasts for covering some of  the many sub-sectors not covered.  She looked 
forward to subsequent notifications  of the outcomes of these discussions, consistent with the provision 
for subsequent notifications in the TM.    WT/REG185/M/1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  24. With regard to the questions and answers document (WT/REG185/5), the representative of 
the European Communities  noted that under a side-letter to the TAFTA, both Parties had agreed that 
further negotiations on financial and telecommunications services would be part of the services 
negotiations. She asked for confirmation that the negotiations on financial and telecommunication 
services would be included in the first round of fu rther negotiations on services.  In addition, she 
asked whether the Parties could indicate whethe r these negotiations were likely to commence on 
1 January 2008, or at an earlier date and what prep arations were currently underway to meet this 
deadline.  The representative of Thailand  replied that the question of whether the services negotiations 
would commence on 1 January 2008 or at an earlier date would become clearer at the conclusion of 
the second Joint Commission meeting in 2007. 
25. With reference to the reply to question 23 by the EC on the denial of benefits, the 
representative of the European Communities  said the reply did not fully respond to the question and 
she asked for further elaboration.  In  response, the representative of Australia  said that the question 
related to consistency between commitments unde r the TAFTA and the GATS referring to Chapter 8 
under Article 804 on Services, and Chapter 9, Article 908:4 dealing with investment.  He noted that 
under Article V:6 of the GATS, there was referen ce to a juridical person for non-members of an 
agreement, who were entitled to treatment granted under the FTA so long as there were substantive 
business operations in the territory of the Parties.   For example Article 804 of the TAFTA used the 
definition of a juridical person to include a pers on engaged in substantive business operations in the 
territory of that Party which the Parties would ar gue was consistent with Article V:6.  There was 
nothing compelling either Party to take up that right and it was the Pa rties' position that they would do 
nothing under those clauses to breach their GATS commitments.  The Parties saw the GATS and the 
GATT as overarching and the primary source of co mmitments.  If they could do something under 
TAFTA or any other agreement, which remained c onsistent with the terms of these agreements, but 
was also practical under the FTA, then they would take the opportunity to do so.  There was no suggestion, however, that they would use their obligations or rights under the FTA to in any way 
endanger the commitments under the GATS.  With regard to investment, he believed the better 
reference was Article 911.  The Agreement used th e same terms as used in the GATS and also implied 
discretion.  However, as for services, there was nothing that compelled Australia or Thailand to breach the GATS by using these clauses.   
26. The representative of th e European Communities
 asked if it would be possible to provide the 
same kind of detailed data as provided for goods (in questions 12 and 13) with regard to the main 
exports and whether there had been an increase in tr ade.  In addition she requested if, in doing so, the 
Parties could demonstrate that the TAFTA went beyond the WTO agreements in some services sectors as they had indicated in the reply to the EC's question 14.  Responding to the question from 
the EC on data, the representative of Australia
 believed this was already in the Factual Presentation.  
However, he was happy to provi de additional information.  Th e representative of the European 
Communities  asked the Parties to help her find the data in the Factual Presentation.  She would also 
appreciate receiving a response on question 23, on th e denial of benefits and asked for further 
clarification on whether the financial or telecomm unication services sector would be covered by the 
next round of nego tiations.  The representative of Thailand  said in response to the clarification sought 
by the EC, that the Parties to the TAFTA had exchanged notes with the following wording:  "Thailand and Australia shall enter into negotiations on financia l services and Telecommunication services as part 
of the review of commitments prov ided for in Article 8.1.2 (1)". 
27. The representative of Thailand
 responded to some of the comments by the European 
Communities and the United States on services liberali zation.  Members would have noted that the 
TAFTA took a positive-list approach to services lib eralization, and the Parties were committed to 
progressive liberalization.  Some of the TAFTA's services commitments went beyond the GATS 
commitments in terms of foreign equity participa tion.  The services side letter was a good indication 
of what the Parties had committed to discuss at the next stage which, at the time the Agreement had WT/REG185/M/1 
Page 8  
 
  come into force, was within three years.  However, as noted during the consideration of the goods part 
of the TAFTA, political developments in Thailand ha d slowed the trade agenda for the one year life-
time of the current interim government which had set  as its agenda the signing of the Thailand - Japan 
FTA, and to participate in ASEAN FTAs.  He also  expected there to be a second Joint Commission 
meeting in October 2007, where issues such as th e next steps, and timelines would have to be 
discussed.  As the current government was an inte rim government and the Joint Commission was at 
the level of officials, the outcomes of the discussions would have to be approved by the incoming government.  On the question of whether financial services and telecommunications would be part of 
the new round, and whether they would be dealt with as soon as possible, he was sure that his 
Australian colleague would use every opportunity to remind Thailand of this.  Both parties would, of 
course, have to respect and address each other's areas of interests.  
28. The representative of the United States
 commended all the Members concerned in producing 
the additional information within the timeframe of the meeting, which boded well for future efforts.  
She suggested that the tables produced by Thaila nd could be circulated by the Secretariat as 
supplementary questions and answers rather than added in the minutes. 
29. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________