Transcript E&OE
4 November 2009
Press conference
Subjects: Fiji, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Oceanic Viking, Cooperation with Indonesia, Melbourne Cup.
This morning, just after 11 am Canberra time, 8 am Perth time, Australia was formally advised by Fiji that our High Commissioner to Fiji, James Batley, had been declared persona non grata and, as a consequence, was required to leave Fiji within 24 hours.
Now this advice was delivered in Fiji to our Deputy High Commissioner.
At about 9 o'clock this morning, Perth time, about midday Canberra time, Australian officials in Canberra formally advised the Acting Fiji High Commissioner to Australia that he had been declared persona non grata and, as a consequence, was required to leave Australia within 24 hours.
This is deeply regrettable and Australia is deeply disappointed at Fiji's conduct in this matter. We worry very much that this will see Fiji further isolating itself from the international community.
Overnight, I've had discussions with the Prime Minister, and again this morning. We came to the regrettable conclusion that our only response could be a proportionate response and hence the declaration of Fiji's Acting High Commissioner as persona non grata and the requirement that he leave Australia within 24 hours.
Yesterday, last night and again this morning, I've also had discussions with New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully, my counterpart. At about this time in New Zealand, Foreign Minister McCully is announcing that New Zealand is taking comparable action in response to the declaration of New Zealand's Deputy High Commissioner as persona non grata.
So this is very much a backwards step. The rationale which Fiji has provided for the expulsion of Australia's High Commissioner and for the expulsion of New Zealand's Deputy High Commissioner is unreasonable and unwarranted.
Both Australia and New Zealand have made it clear to Fiji in recent times that, as a consequence of the abrogation of the constitution earlier this year, and as a consequence of changed arrangements so far as the appointment of judges in Fiji were concerned, that Australia would regard judges appointed as judges of Fiji, as effectively appointments by Commodore Bainimarama and as a consequence, subject to Australia's travel bans.
This excuse is neither warranted, reasonable nor justified and regrettably it takes Fiji's relationship with Australia, Fiji's relationship with New Zealand, Fiji's relationship with the Pacific Islands Forum and Fiji's relationship with the international community backwards.
In recent times, I had been hopeful that once the dust had settled from Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum, Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth, that we could find a way of having a dialogue with Fiji to bring Fiji back to democracy, to bring Fiji back as a fully fledged democratic member of the international community.
Indeed, in September, in New York, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, I spoke to Commodore Bainimarama and made precisely that point to him.
So Australia is deeply disappointed by Fiji's action. But we have come to the regrettable conclusion that we have no option but to respond in a proportionate manner and I note New Zealand's similar, if not identical proportionate response.
Before taking your questions on that and other issues, can I just make some remarks about Afghanistan?
We welcome the fact that the Afghan Constitution and Afghanistan's election laws have seen President Karzai returned to office.
The election itself has been controversial, but I make this point which I made both before and after the election: irrespective of which government, or which President the Afghan election process saw emerge, the key and most important point in Australia's view is to now look to the future.
Australia now looks very much to President Karzai to make substantial progress on governance and corruption, to make substantial progress on anti-narcotics and to make substantial progress on Afghanistan itself becoming responsible for security matters.
That will require much more of a focus on the training of the Afghan army, the training of the Afghan police force and the building of the capacity of the Afghan institutions.
I made it clear, both before and after the election, that there had been an ebbing of confidence in the Karzai government as a result of a failure to make progress on governance, on corruption and on narcotics. Australia and the international community now looks to President Karzai and the new Afghanistan Government to make substantial progress on these fronts.
I'm happy to respond to your questions on Fiji or other matters.
QUESTION: Can we start with Afghanistan, since you just left that. I think I heard Mr Karzai this morning promising that he would try to better spend the money of the taxpayers, of the various countries assisting Afghanistan.
Do the Australian taxpayers have reason to be concerned that their money isn't being spent very well?
STEPHEN SMITH: Australia makes a substantial contribution to Afghanistan, both in terms of security through our combat and defence contribution, now some 1550 personnel, and also over the period of time that we've been in Afghanistan we've also made a substantial effort so far as reconstruction is concerned - either through our defence reconstruction taskforce, or through our civil capacity building contribution.
We want to see much more progress in Afghanistan. On the fronts that I have referred to, as I said both before and after the election, on corruption, on governance, and on narcotics. But also on the provision of essential services, health, education and the like. And as I've made clear in the past, we are continuing to look at what more we can do by way of capacity building, and what more we can do by way of development assistance to make a contribution on this front. We're doing that not just in consultation with Afghanistan, but also with our colleagues in ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force.
So it's not just the Australian community who will be looking to substantial progress on these fronts, but the Australian Government and the international community. That point's been made by a number of my counterparts throughout the international community and, indeed, that point was made in the last couple of days by President Obama.
QUESTION: Do you have some concerns that Mr Karzai is now referring to the Taliban as his brothers?
STEPHEN SMITH: I have made this point as well, that at some point in the cycle, in addition to making progress on the security front, which requires substantial training efforts so far as the Afghanistan army and police force and institutions of state are concerned, in addition to the civilian capacity building front there needs to be a political rapprochement, a political realignment, and a political reconciliation in Afghanistan.
That can only start with the Afghanistan Government and the Afghanistan political process and the Afghanistan people themselves. And I've previously made the point again, as has been made by many in the international community, that there are some people who are fellow travellers with the Taliban, because they see no alternative. The Karzai Government needs to show that alternative, in terms of its capacity to provide services for its people, but also its capacity to make progress on governance and corruption and narcotics issues.
QUESTION: But realistically, can they do that by embracing the Taliban which seeks to destroy everything they've…
STEPHEN SMITH: Australia and the international community have made it clear that whilst in the first instance that is a matter for Afghanistan itself, President Karzai and members of his Government have previously made the point correctly that they can only effect a political reconciliation with people in Afghanistan, including fellow travellers of the Taliban, if they renounce violence, if they agree to put down their arms and if they agree to commit themselves to the Afghanistan constitution. Which as we have recently seen contains measures for democratic processes.
So they are the preconditions, if you like, that the international community and Afghanistan itself have previously held out. We would expect those to be the starting point and we would expect those to be respected.
QUESTION: Is the Federal Government prepared to keep troops there for the long haul and not call them out at the earliest opportunity?
STEPHEN SMITH: We've made it clear, as the Prime Minister did when he announced our additional contributions from 1100 to 1550, that central to that increased contribution was a much greater focus on training the Afghan Army in Oruzgan Province. We see very much, our mission, our objective, as putting the Afghanistan Army in Oruzgan in a position to deal with security matters themselves.
So we have made it clear that we are there to meet our international commitment, our international obligation. We have recently enhanced our contribution from 1100 to 1550, which is why I've said on a number of occasions, not only have we not received a request for additional resources, we're not expecting to receive one.
But we are there to complete our mission which is to reduce, if not eliminate, the capacity of Afghanistan to be a breeding ground for international terrorism. And to train the Afghan Army in Oruzgan Province so that it is in a position to deal with these security matters itself. As everyone has made clear, from President Obama to the Prime Minister to the Secretary General of the United Nations, this of course will take some time.
QUESTION: Back to Fiji, what meaning does our expulsion of Fiji's High Commissioner from Canberra have if Voreqe Bainimarama was recalling him anyway?
STEPHEN SMITH: As I said overnight, if I was simply engaged in tit for tat I would've effected the expulsion yesterday afternoon. I didn't want to do it simply on the basis of tit for tat, or who got in first. Frankly, not interested in that.
What I wanted to do, in consultation with the Prime Minister, obviously, in consultation with New Zealand, was to calmly determine what would be the appropriate response so far as Australia is concerned. Very regrettably we came to the conclusion that the only response could be a proportionate response and we regret that. But we have responded by expelling the Fijian Acting High Commissioner for the following reasons.
Firstly, Australia needs to send a strong message, not just to Fiji, but to our colleagues in the Pacific, our colleagues in the Commonwealth, our colleagues in the international community generally, that we are steadfast in our view that Fiji has to return to democracy.
Secondly, our response has been a response which has not broadened the effect of our sanctions, or our approach to Fiji. We have been very careful all along to ensure that what we do, whilst it may well have adverse implications for members of the regime itself, officials, through travel sanctions or travel bans, we don't want to do things which adversely impact on the Fijian people themselves. To the contrary, which is why we've never engaged in trade or economic sanctions and we continue to worry very much about the fact that Fiji's economic and social circumstances continue to decline.
So we send a message that they have to return to democracy, but at the same time we haven't gone further. We have certainly not contemplated as I've seen some comments publicly, a break off of diplomatic relations because we believe it's very important to at least have some avenues of dialogue with Commodore Bainimarama and Fiji. And again, when the dust settles on this episode, we hope to find some way back of having a dialogue with Fiji to bring Fiji back to democracy.
QUESTION: Will we have to start looking at trade sanctions as well as travel sanctions?
STEPHEN SMITH: No. We have not, and we will not contemplate economic or trade sanctions for the very good reason that we don't want to do anything which adversely impacts on the Fijian people themselves.
On the contrary, Fiji should be a premier economy in the Pacific. Fiji should be a leading and premier country in the Pacific. Now it is a very long way from that. It is, in very many respects, a pariah, not just in the Pacific but in the international community. It's economic and social circumstances have deteriorated significantly since the military coup, and more recently the abrogation of the constitution.
QUESTION: But our diplomatic sanctions haven't worked so far to force Fiji into democracy. What else can we do?
STEPHEN SMITH: I've made the point on a number of occasions, we want to have a dialogue with Fiji. But it's very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who doesn't want to have a dialogue with you. It's very difficult to have a one way dialogue.
But just as I have after the suspension of Fiji from the Commonwealth, just as I have after the suspension of Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum, we remain open to a dialogue with Fiji to help bring Fiji back to democracy.
This is not just an Australian view, this is a view unanimously adopted by the Pacific Islands Forum; unanimously adopted by the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth suspension of Fiji. We've also seen very strong stands taken by the European Union and also very strong expressions from the United Nations.
So this is not just Australia, or just Australia and New Zealand acting. We have taken our steps in concert with our regional partners and with the rest of the international community.
We want to see Fiji return to democracy and respect for human rights. We want to see the end, in Fiji, of the culture of coups, and we stand ready, willing and able to assist in that process. But we can't help if Fiji continues to rebuff, not just Australia, but the rest of the international community.
QUESTION: What's the situation with travel warnings? Can Australians safely travel to Fiji on holiday or whatever, in light of these…
STEPHEN SMITH: The travel advice is on the website for all to see. It doesn't recommend, ‘don't travel to Fiji'. It's a matter for Australians to make their own judgements, and Australians continue to travel to Fiji as tourists, and that is a very important part of Fiji's economy.
So, we're certainly not recommending to Australians that they not travel to Fiji. We're certainly not suggesting to Australians that they effect some form of tourist or economic or financial ban on Fiji. Our travel advisory is there for people to see. It's a matter for Australians to make that judgement.
But again, we're not contemplating travel, financial or tourist bans because we don't want to do anything which would adversely impact on Fijians themselves and their economy.
QUESTION: But, isn't this an escalation of the difficulties between Fiji and Australia? Is there any chance of tourists being targeted?
STEPHEN SMITH: It is a regrettable, backwards step so far as the relationship between Australia and Fiji is concerned, so far as the relationship between the interim Fiji Government and the Australian Government is concerned. But I fully expect that Australians will make their own judgements about their travel to Fiji after they have read our travel advice on the website.
But we are not suggesting to Australians that they embark upon tourist or financial or economic sanctions against Fiji.
QUESTION: So, if it's clear though, you don't see any danger for tourists going there?
STEPHEN SMITH: People should read the travel advice and make their own judgements. That's the standard advice that we give to Australians. But our travel advice to Fiji is not advice not to travel to Fiji.
QUESTION: Does Australia push Fiji over the line by excluding them from the free trade talks, in the case of the last PACER Plus free trade agreement?
STEPHEN SMITH: We haven't excluded them from those PACER Plus talks. Again, it was a unanimous decision of the Pacific Island Forum leaders in Cairns earlier this year that because of the suspension of Fiji from the forums of the Commonwealth, it was not appropriate for Fiji to be directly represented at those talks. But it was important for Fiji to be briefed in an ongoing way about those developments so that once Fiji returned to democracy, it would be in a good position to hit the ground running so far as PACER Plus discussions were concerned.
So the Trade Ministers of the Pacific Islands Forum have resolved amongst themselves mechanisms to keep Fiji fully informed. Again, that is a reflection of sending Fiji a message that a military dictatorship and the abrogation of a Constitution, requires the Pacific and international community sending a strong message. But again, holding out the olive branch, that we don't want to do anything which adversely impact on Fiji's economic or social or financial circumstances.
Again, there's a very easy solution to PACER Plus negotiations, and that's for Fiji to return to democracy and to return to respect for human rights.
QUESTION: That wasn't what you think could have pushed Fiji over the line?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the very clear reason and rationale, as expressed by Commodore Bainimarama yesterday, and contained in correspondence to me today, is as a result of Australia determining that its travel sanctions applied to judges of Fiji appointed after the abrogation of the constitution.
We made it very clear to Fiji that because judges appointed after the abrogation of the constitution are effectively appointed at the whim of Commodore Bainimarama, we would regard those judges as Fijian officials and subject to the travel bans applying to members of the regime.
We also made it crystal clear to Fiji that, as we had in the past, we would deal with these matters on a case by case basis, including waiving those bans for humanitarian or other sensible reasons including, for example, the need for the medical treatment in Australia.
As expressed by Commodore Bainimarama, it is the result of those travel sanctions applying to members of the Fiji judiciary that Fiji has acted in this way.
We regard that response as unreasonable, we regard it as regrettable, and we regard it very much as a backward step. But we also believe very strongly that to respond with a message from Australia and from the international community that it is not acceptable for Fiji to continue to be a military dictatorship, we have made the decision today to expel the Fijian Acting High Commissioner.
QUESTION: Have you received any response from Fiji in relation to this decision to expel the Acting High Commissioner?
STEPHEN SMITH: No, but I don't think they're going to be surprised by it.
QUESTION: Are you expecting a response…
STEPHEN SMITH: I'm sure that in accordance with is usual practice Commodore Bainimarama will make public comments about our expulsion of the Fiji Acting High Commissioner, just as I've made public comments about his expulsion of our High Commissioner.
I do make this point. In the last month or so, I had indicated to Fiji that I was very happy to enhance the status of their Acting High Commissioner to a fully fledged high commissioner. Commodore Bainimarama and the interim government of Fiji welcomed that very much. I thought that was a good sign and a step forward. I thought that was showing some potential for progress, some potential for a dialogue. And so I regret very much that we now see the circumstances which have arisen yesterday and today.
QUESTION: Do you anticipate that this decision to expel their High Commissioner will perhaps make Fiji withdraw even further from the international scene?
STEPHEN SMITH: As I said in my opening remarks, I worry very much about Fiji further isolating itself from the Pacific Islands Forum, further isolating itself from the Commonwealth, and further isolating itself from the international community. Which is why, again, I say just as I was prepared after Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum to have a dialogue, just as I was prepared after the suspension by the Commonwealth of Fiji from the Commonwealth, and just as I am prepared today when the dust settles on the expulsion of our High Commissioner to Fiji and the expulsion of Fiji's Acting High Commissioner to Australia, to engage in a dialogue to try and bring Fiji back to democracy and back to respect for human rights.
QUESTION: As it stands now, what is the [indistinct] indication of Fiji's time line to have an election?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, Commodore Bainimarama has said repeatedly since the abrogation of the constitution, he's not proposing to have an election before 2014. Last time I looked under the Australian electoral system we could have as many as three elections in advance of that time. And, given the the military intervention occurred a couple of years ago, we don't in any way regard 2014 as an appropriate timetable.
People would also of course remember Commodore Bainimarama's faithful undertaking to the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders' meeting in Tonga in 2008 that he would have an election in Fiji before the end of the first quarter of this year.
QUESTION: Accusations from Frank Bainimarama that our diplomats have meddled in [indistinct] internal judicial affairs. Is it improper for diplomats to do that, against international conventions?
STEPHEN SMITH: The facts and the truth are that they have done no such thing. So the accusation itself is baseless.
That is Commodore Bainimarama's way of referring to the fact that we made it absolutely crystal clear to Fiji that the appointment of judges to Fiji, after the abrogation of the constitution, would see those judges subject to the travel bans as if they were members of the regime.
When it comes to judges from the Commonwealth, from Australia, the Commonwealth or other parts of the world serving as judges in Fiji, I've made the point previously that I follow the advice that the now Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, His Honour Justice Robert French gave when he was a member of the Federal Court. Which was that effectively no sensible judge or barrister in Australia would accept such an appointment. That was good advice for Australian judges and Australian barristers, and I think it's good advice for Commonwealth judges and Commonwealth barristers.
We regard, following the abrogation of the constitution, judges appointed by Commodore Bainimarama as judges effectively appointed at his whim. It doesn't respect a proper separation or independence of the judiciary. As a consequence, we treat them for travel purposes as members of the regime, and travel bans apply accordingly. That's the reason stated by Commodore Bainimarama that he has expelled High Commissioner Batley.
QUESTION: [Indistinct] the new ambassador - McCarthy to Sri Lanka, what's he going to achieve there [indistinct] Sri Lanka?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, former High Commissioner McCarthy, the Prime Minister and I have appointed him as a special representative to Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka has a range of challenges as we know as a result of the ending of the long civil conflict. Those challenges go to the movement of a very large number of displaced people out of the displaced persons' camp, still in the order of 200,000 to 250,000 people. It goes to political reconciliation in Sri Lanka, and as the Sri Lankan Government itself has said, the need for devolution of authority to occur in accordance with the Sri Lankan constitution throughout Sri Lanka, but in particular to Tamil areas, so that all of the people of Sri Lanka believe they have a role in Sri Lanka's future.
And then of course there are the grave difficulties that we've seen as a result of the conflict, seeing large numbers potentially of people, asylum seekers or boat people, from Sri Lanka to our region: travelling through Malaysia, Indonesia and also heading towards Australia.
So these are significant challenges. Former High Commissioner McCarthy is one of our best and most experienced diplomats. I'll be meeting with him in the next couple of days. We expect that he will travel to Sri Lanka shortly.
As the Prime Minister indicated in the last couple of days he spoke recently to the Sri Lankan President, President Rajapaksa, and indicated to the President that he expected that special representative McCarthy would travel to Sri Lanka in the not too distant future.
QUESTION: Will you asking Mr McCarthy to explore with the Sri Lankan Government the possibility of taking the boat people back there?
STEPHEN SMITH: When people leave a country, whether it's Sri Lanka or any other country, and claim asylum, if their claim is assessed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and they are accorded refugee status under the refugee convention, then they are resettled in a country which is a party to the convention.
If they're not accorded refugee status, in accordance with the provisions of the convention, if it's safe for them to return, they are returned to their own country.
But of course the difficulties in the aftermath of the civil conflict, the challenges that that throws up for Sri Lanka, including questions of boat people and asylum seekers, will be one of the things which Mr McCarthy discusses with the Sri Lankan Government.
Australia has made it very clear, both privately to the Sri Lankan Government in my conversations with my counterpart, Foreign Minister Bogollagama, also in the discussion I had with Foreign Minister Bogollagama and the President in the course of this year, that Australia wants to render every assistance that we can to Sri Lanka -including humanitarian assistance to the people in the camps which we've effected. In some respects, more importantly, humanitarian assistance to get people out of the displaced peoples' camps. And our last contribution was $5 million to help effect resettlement.
We're also doing substantial work with them in mine clearance and de-mining because very many of the areas where resettlement is required are subject to very adverse conditions so far as land mines are concerned.
In the course of the Prime Minister's conversation with President Rajapaksa, the Prime Minister also discussed other areas where we may be able to be of assistance. One area includes whether we can be of assistance in housing, the rebuilding or the repairing of housing to enable resettlement to occur.
So, all of these issues Mr McCarthy will progress with the Sri Lankan Government.
QUESTION: Has the Indonesian Foreign Ministry contacted you with concerns about oil [indistinct] reaching Indonesia?
STEPHEN SMITH: No. Obviously I welcome very much the fact that the fire's out, and my colleague, Minister Ferguson, will deal in detail with that.
I spoke to the Indonesian Foreign Minister at the end of last week. We spoke generally about a number of issues which I've previously put on the public record, but that issue was not one of them.
I know that at officials' level there has been contact but it's not a matter that I've discussed with my Indonesian counterpart.
QUESTION: You're not aware of anything being imminent, then?
STEPHEN SMITH: Sorry?
QUESTION: Nothing is imminent?
You're not getting a sense that they've been working up to coming to talk you because the oil's about to wash ashore?
STEPHEN SMITH: No.
But in the first instance those matters would be matters for Minister Ferguson. He's indicated, of course, that he wants to have a Commission of Inquiry. He wants to have, as the Government does, a very careful look at the causes, and whether it's able or whether we're able in the future to prevent such things occurring again, but also to look at the timeliness and speed of the response.
I know the matter has been raised or discussed between officials, but it's not something that's come to my level or my attention. It was not raised or discussed between me and the Indonesian Foreign Minister, and I'm not expecting that to be the case.
QUESTION: Does Australia have any exposure or liability for any oil [indistinct]?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, those detailed questions you really need to address to Mr Ferguson.
QUESTION: Any advance on the Indonesian solution talks?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, that's not a phrase that I use. I've tried to make the point very clearly that on issues of people smuggling, human traffic and boat people, there's no solution here which one individual nation can effect, whether it's Australia, whether it's Indonesia, whether it's Malaysia, whether it's Thailand.
That's why we have the Bali Process which brings together over 40 countries and institutions in our region to deal with people movement. Australia co-chairs that with Indonesia as we did in Bali earlier this year.
And the work of the Bali Process continues, including a meeting next month of officials dealing expressly with Sri Lankan issues.
In recent times we've seen the Bali Process work in groups, have discussions at official levels about Afghan people movement, but also movement of the Rohingya people from Burma, Thailand, and Bangladesh.
We continue to have discussions with Indonesia at two levels. One is discussions with Indonesian officials and the asylum seekers onboard the Oceanic Viking to have the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking peacefully and calmly come off the boat, to enable processing to occur.
But secondly, ongoing discussions with Indonesia about what more we need to do, both under the Bali Process and also under the Lombok Treaty between Australia and Indonesia, to meet the heightened challenge of people movement, displaced people, asylum seekers, and boat people.
Those discussions are ongoing and we hope that our officials, both Australian and Indonesian, will be in a position to make a progress report to President Yudhoyono and Prime Minister Rudd in the margins of the APEC meeting in Singapore in the next week or so.
QUESTION: Yesterday [indistinct] called for the 78 asylum seekers onboard the Oceanic Viking to be returned to Australia and be processed on Christmas Island. What do you think [indistinct]?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, that's not something that the Australian Government has in contemplation. But I note that at least Mr Barnett has a view, which is not something you can ascribe to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull.
QUESTION: Are those sort of comments destructive in terms of a…
STEPHEN SMITH: The Premier is entitled to express a view. That is not something that the Australian Government has in contemplation. We have an agreement with Indonesia as a result of a search and rescue operation that the people onboard the Oceanic Viking will be processed by the international institutions, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organisation for the Migration, in Indonesia. And we are continuing to have our discussions with Indonesian officials and with the asylum seekers to effect that.
The Premier is entitled to his view. I just make the point that over the last two weeks we've had a lot of noise from the Leader of the Opposition. One thing we haven't had from the Leader of the Opposition is any definition as to what he would do. He won't say, for example, whether the Oceanic Viking should have gone to Indonesia or to Christmas Island. He won't say whether the asylum seekers should disembark in Indonesia.
There is a deafening silence when it comes to the alternative policy construct from the alternative prime minister.
All right.
QUESTION: Well just - I've got one more.
The Greens are urging the Federal Government, I think, to get involved or to prevent the prize money from the Melbourne Cup…
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, which…
QUESTION: …[indistinct] basically, I think, going to Chechnya.
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, which horses run in the Cup and what the prize money is and how it's allocated is entirely a matter for the Victorian Racing authorities.
QUESTION: So, it's a bit of grandstanding on Senator Brown's part, or is it [indistinct]?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I'm happy to leave you to characterise or categorise the contribution from the Greens.
The only issue which may have been relevant for action by the Commonwealth Government was if the Chechnyan President contemplated coming to Australia, in which case it would have fallen for me to consider whether foreign policy considerations would have caused us not to allow him to enter. In the event he didn't seek to come, so that issue didn't arise.
We have, in the past, made clear our very grave concerns about human rights breaches in Chechnya. But whether a particular horse runs in the Melbourne Cup is a matter for the Victorian Racing authorities. The allocation of the prize money or the stakemoney is a matter for the Victorian Racing authorities.
QUESTION: So, it's nothing you can intervene in?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it's a matter for them. It's not a matter in which the Commonwealth Government has a direct role.
Okay. Thanks.
[END]
Media inquiries
Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500