• Home
• Media releases
• Transcripts
• Speeches
• Statements
• Current Minister
• Department

STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks very much for turning up. Can I start by wishing you all a happy New Year. I returned from my leave over Christmas and New Year yesterday, so it’s good to see you again. There are a number of issues that have become current issues in the course of my period of leave. There are some remarks I’d like to make on those and then I’m happy to respond to your questions on those or other matters.

Can I firstly start with a question of Indian students in Australia. Yesterday, on my return from leave, I spoke by telephone with my Indian counterpart, External Affairs Minister Krishna, yesterday afternoon. I relayed to him personally condolences on the death of Indian student Mr Garg, and relayed personally our condolences to his family. I underlined with Minister Krishna that the Victorian Police continued to treat the investigation as one of its highest priorities, and outlined to Minister Krishna the steps that have been taken by the Victorian authorities in terms of improved community policing.

Minister Krishna and I agreed that Australia and India have an excellent relationship. Following on the Prime Minister’s visit last year to India, we increased or raised the status of our relationship to a strategic partnership. And we both agreed that this was an issue that we did not want to disturb or get in the way of what External Affairs Minister Krishna described as an excellent relationship. And I undertook to continue to keep External Affairs Minister Krishna informed of developments in the investigation.

Yesterday, on a separate matter, Australian officials were advised by Chinese officials in the Stern Hu matter that the investigation had concluded and the matter had been referred to the Shanghai Prosecutor.

It’s now a matter for the exercise of the Shanghai Prosecutors’ discretion to decide whether the matter against Stern Hu and other Rio Tinto employees will go to trial. Under Chinese law and practice, as I’m advised, there is an initial six week timetable for the Prosecutor to make that decision - although that timetable can be extended. And as a consequence, I’m not proposing to put a timetable on that decision by the Prosecutor. And I think it’s the better course of conduct to simply await the decision by the Shanghai Prosecutor.

We continue to provide Stern Hu’s family every consular assistance. Our officials in Shanghai have visited Mr Hu in detention in accordance with the consular agreement that Australia has with China. And that’s been occurring effectively on a monthly basis. The last consular visit was on 8 January, and we would of course expect those consular visits to continue.

We continue to indicate to the Chinese authorities that we believe it is appropriate for this matter to be dealt with transparently, and expeditiously, and this is the point that both Australian officials and Australian Ministers have made from day one. And it’s a point I’ve made to my counterpart, Foreign Minister Yang, both by telephone and in person.

I see this morning, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, out there criticising the Prime Minister for not raising this matter with the Chinese leadership.

That is of course wrong. It’s on the public record that Prime Minister Rudd raised this matter with Premier Wen in October last year. So the Liberal Party’s simply wrong on that assertion.

We continue to make these points to the Chinese authorities, and we will now await the decision of the Shanghai Prosecutor.

Can I just make some remarks on whaling. I think, on whaling, the very important starting point is that of course Australia has a comprehensive relationship, a comprehensive economic and strategic partnership with Japan. This has been the case for some considerable time. And that will continue.

It is, of course, well known that Australia and Japan have a strong disagreement about whaling. But in my discussions with my current counterpart and with his predecessors, other Japanese Foreign Ministers, we have agreed that this is not an issue that we want to allow to disturb the strength of that comprehensive economic and strategic partnership.

But we do have a strong disagreement, and as a consequence of having a strong disagreement robust things are said, both in public and in private, and that continues to be the case.

The Australian Government’s position is, of course, that we want the Japanese Government to cease whaling in the Great Southern Oceans. We continue to pursue diplomatic efforts, both bilateral and multilateral, through the International Whaling Commission, to seek to bring that about.

But we’ve always made the point that if those efforts fail then we leave open the option of pursuing legal action before the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and that remains the case.

I note this morning that, when I read my newspapers some time between seven o’clock and eight o’clock, the position of Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, was that he was opposed to Australia taking legal action against Japan on whaling. And then when I listened to radio between eight o’clock and 8.30 on the AM program, he was saying that he supported the taking of legal action against Japan and, indeed, the paper should be filed by the end of the month, which was a comment that his Shadow Minister for the Environment had made in the course of the last couple of months.

I’m not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition is doing on whaling or anything much else for that matter, other than making it up as he goes along.

I recall the comment, in the course of recent history, of positions changing from lunch time to Lateline. Well, here we’ve seen a position change from the morning papers dropping on people’s front lawns, to AM.

So that, I think, puts whaling very squarely in the context of a comprehensive relationship between Australia and Japan. We have a disagreement, it’s a strong disagreement, but the relationship is deep and robust and of long standing. And it will more than sustain such a disagreement.

The second point I’d like to make, of course, is on issues relating to safety at sea. I have made the point since I became Foreign Minister that when there is activity in the Great Southern Oceans there is a high risk of serious injuries or fatalities occurring, and a small capacity to render assistance. And that is why, in the run-up to this whaling season, together with my New Zealand counterpart, Murray McCully, and my Dutch counterpart, Maxime Verhagen, we issued a joint statement calling on all parties in the Great Southern Oceans to conduct themselves with safety at sea being the highest priority.

When we saw the terrible incident occur recently, our concern for safety at sea is why Australia indicated it would propose, through its maritime agencies, to examine the circumstances relating to that collision. And we would make that investigation, or that fact finding matter, public, and also available to the New Zealand authorities. New Zealand, of course, is also undertaking an appropriate maritime investigation because the ship concerned is a New Zealand flagged ship. And we expect, when the Japanese whaling vessels return to Japan, that Japan will also conduct an investigation, given that the Japanese whaling vessels are, obviously, Japanese flagged ships.

The collision, the terrible collision, occurred in Australia’s Search and Rescue area. Fortunately rescue was not required, but it also occurred close to Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, and that’s another factor causing Australia to conduct a fact finding investigation through its maritime authorities.

Can I indicate, as well, yesterday I spoke to my counterpart from New Zealand, Foreign Minister McCully. We discussed a range of issues. In particular, we discussed Foreign Minister McCully’s recent visit to Fiji. This was a matter that Foreign Minister McCully and I had spoken about before Christmas, and I indicated to him that I was fully supportive of his visit to Fiji.

Foreign Minister McCully discussed with the interim Foreign Minister for Fiji, Foreign Minister Kubuabola, the question of New Zealand’s small and limited resources so far as its High Commission in Fiji is concerned.

Australia of course has a large mission in Fiji, New Zealand has a small one, and following the expulsion of the New Zealand High Commissioner last year which occurred at the same time as the expulsion of the Australian High Commissioner, the New Zealand High Commission in Fiji was left with very limited resources.

The purpose of Foreign Minister McCully’s visit was to agree with his Fijian counterpart, the interim Foreign Minister, allocation of additional resources to New Zealand’s mission in Fiji.

That’s been agreed between New Zealand and Fiji, I welcome it, it’s a good development, it will enable New Zealand to better carry out its responsibilities in Fiji to New Zealand citizens.

But it also reflects a point and a view that Foreign Minister McCully and I strongly share, which is whilst we have a strong disagreement with the interim Fiji Government and want Fiji to return to democracy, at some point in the cycle we do need to have a dialogue with the Fiji Government.

I welcome Foreign Minister McCully’s visit to Fiji, I welcome the positive outcome that he has secured, an agreement with his Fijian counterpart, and I welcome the fact that that dialogue has occurred.

Finally can I say that I welcome very much the fact that next week, Monday of next week, Australia and the United States will conduct the annual AUSMIN talks. They’ll be conducted in Canberra on Monday 18th January. Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defence Gates will attend, and Defence Minister Faulkner and I will host the AUSMIN talks.

The alliance between Australia and the United States is of course an indispensable part of Australia’s strategic defence and security arrangements. This year will see the 25th anniversary of the creation of AUSMIN and the 25th anniversary of the AUSMIN talks. And they have proven over the period to be very successful and very productive and I welcome the fact that both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates will be in attendance.

Finally I’ll be releasing today details of two diplomatic appointments, both career diplomats.

George Fraser, who is currently our Consul-General in Nauru, will become our High Commissioner to Nauru as a result of an agreement between Australia and Nauru to increase our level of representation in Nauru from Consulate-General to High Commission.

Ian Kemish will become our new High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea, replacing Chris Moraitis who recently finished his term in Papua New Guinea.

Mr Kemish of course was recently our Ambassador to Germany. So the details of those announcements will be released later in the day.

I’m sorry that’s lengthy, but it is the start of a new year so I’m happy to respond to your questions on those or other matters.

QUESTION: Just on Fiji do you see New Zealand's approach as a repudiation of Australia's stance…?

STEPHEN SMITH: No, absolutely not. Foreign Minister McCully, before the end of last year, before Christmas, gave me the courtesy of having a discussion about the difficulty that New Zealand is facing as a result of the expulsion of their High Commissioner, effectively reduced their mission to a very small number of officers. And I agreed with Foreign Minister McCully that it was a sensible thing to do and I understand, I haven't seen a transcript of Foreign Minister McCully's remarks, but I understand that he's been generous in his remarks today saying that what's occurred has been done with my agreement and with Australia's support, and that is the case.

QUESTION: Will you be doing [Indistinct]

STEPHEN SMITH: Well the issue for us is a different one than the issue that Foreign Minister McCully has just confronted. We have a large mission in Fiji. We have over 20 Australian officials there through a range of agencies and we also have a large number of locally engaged staff. New Zealand has a much smaller mission, and that was what put the pressure on New Zealand's resources following the expulsion of both our respective High Commissioners.

I think the issue for Australia is more, as it now is with New Zealand, the desirability at some point in the future of restoring both our High Commissioners to Fiji and likewise Fiji restoring its High Commissioner to Australia. But I think that a lot of water needs to go under the bridge before we get to that stage.

QUESTION: You talked about having some dialogue at some stage, when will that be?

STEPHEN SMITH: I don't put a timetable on that. I think I've said in the past that at the UN General Assembly last year in September in New York I had a conversation both with interim Foreign Minister Kubuabola but also with Commodore Bainimarama and said to them both that when the dust had settled from Fiji's expulsion from the Pacific Islands Forum and from the Commonwealth, that we did need to find a way back into a dialogue.

Regrettably the Fijian response last year, as you know, was the expulsion of our High Commissioner which we regarded both as inappropriate, but nonetheless it occurred.

Australia wants to see Fiji return to democracy. Commodore Bainimarama gave a faithful undertaking to his Pacific Islands Forum colleagues in 2007 that would occur before the end of the first quarter last year. Of course they are in breach of that.

At some point we have to find a way of having a dialogue with Fiji. Minister McCully made the point to me yesterday when we spoke by telephone, and I understand he's also made the point publicly, that he was very careful in his conversation with Foreign Minister Kubuabola to restrict it to that bilateral issue and not to discuss matters that go more generally, particularly that go to those issues where there is an interest by the Pacific Islands Forum.

But at some point Australia and New Zealand either bilaterally or through the Pacific Islands Forum, presumably through the Ministerial Contact Group, does need to strike up a dialogue to get Fiji back to democracy.

QUESTION: Can you just clarify when that dialogue can happen under the current regime or can you not broker a dialogue until there's some sort of move to restore democracy?

STEPHEN SMITH: The dialogue will have to occur under the current interim administration.

QUESTION: What will happen to the four Tamil asylum seekers that they've refused entry into Australia?

STEPHEN SMITH: I think my colleague the Immigration Minister is about to do a press conference, so I'll leave the detail of that to him. But as a general proposition when the UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, assesses people as refugees and asks Australia to settle them, they go through rigorous health and security and other assessments. And if they fail the security assessments then they don't get entry to Australia. And that's the case in respect of a small number of asylum seekers who have been accorded refugee status by the UNHCR. They're currently at Christmas Island. My understanding is that they will remain at Christmas Island until they are resettled in a third country or they may at some stage voluntarily agree to return to Sri Lanka.

It's not, of course, an option for Australia to compulsorily return them to Sri Lanka. That would be in breach of the convention, which we're not proposing to do.

QUESTION: But if Australia's got problems with their [Indistinct] credentials what other country would accept them?

STEPHEN SMITH: In the past there are examples of where individuals have fallen short of security requirements in a particular country, whether it's Australia, Canada, United States, and other countries have resettled them because security concerns or security arrangements or security assessments are different. But my colleague Senator Evans will go through that I'm sure in detail later today.

QUESTION: What are the security [Indistinct]

STEPHEN SMITH: Well we never go into that detail. They are subject to rigorous security assessments and we don't go into the detail of either success or failure for all of the obvious reasons.

QUESTION: Which are the countries that they're talking to in relation to resettlement?

STEPHEN SMITH: So far as resettlement of Sri Lankan asylum seekers out of Indonesia generally and off the Oceanic Viking there are a number of resettlement countries who work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

They obviously include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, a range of European countries including for example Norway. But in terms of the Oceanic Viking I think it's on the public record that a number have been resettled or are proposed to be resettled in Australia, but also a number are proposed to be resettled in the United States, in Canada, and a small number expect to be resettled in Norway.

QUESTION: But if we've rejected them then hardly - other countries who are party to this agreement are highly unlikely to want to take them.

STEPHEN SMITH: As I've said in the past, I understand there are examples of where asylum seekers have fallen short of security assessment requirements in particular countries or particular jurisdictions but have been resettled in other third countries.

QUESTION: Is it true that one of the Tamils who has been rejected, if you like, has a child and that child has been granted…?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I'll let Senator Evans go into those details.

QUESTION: [Inaudible]

STEPHEN SMITH: Sorry?

QUESTION: How will the Government know about security [indistinct]…

STEPHEN SMITH: I'll let Senator Evans deal with that detail, but as a general proposition, as is the case under this Government, as was the case under previous governments, when an individual makes application for asylum and is accorded refugee status, they are subject to rigorous assessments both on health and security fronts, and from time to time, people who have been accorded refugee status do fall short of those security assessments.

QUESTION: What does this assessment actually mean, though? Does there - is there a suggestion that they are terrorists?

STEPHEN SMITH: I'll leave those matters to Senator Evans, but as I made the point earlier, we don't go into the detail of those security assessments, either positive or negative, for all of the obvious reasons.

QUESTION: Isn't the assessment problematic, though, because isn't one person's terrorist another person's freedom fighter? How do these assessments…

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I don't categorise or characterise them in any way whatsoever. I simply make the point that they are subject to rigorous security assessments. From time to time a small number of people who successfully apply for refugee status fail that security assessment, not just in Australia, but from time to time in other countries.

QUESTION: Do you understand, though, that people are here, these four people who fail the security assessment would likely want to know whether they are considered possible terrorists?

STEPHEN SMITH: I think the fundamental point is that a small number of people from time to time fail Australia's stringent and high standard requirements for all security clearance.

QUESTION: Minister, if I can turn your attention for a moment to the comments on Afghanistan [indistinct] made. Who'll be representing Australia at that conference?

STEPHEN SMITH: I'm proposing to attend. And I'll attend together with our Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Ric Smith. I'll also be accompanied by other Australian officials. I've briefly discussed this matter with Foreign Secretary Milliband who, together with Prime Minister Brown, will host both the Afghanistan and the Yemen conference. I indicated to Foreign Secretary Milliband that I will attend. And closer to the conference and prior to my departure, I'll make more substantive remarks about Australia's position at the conference.

I very much support the fact that we're having an international conference, and at the UN General Assembly in September last year in New York, there was a meeting of more than a dozen foreign ministers, myself included, Foreign Secretary Milliband, and others.

We discussed, at that time, the importance of having an international conference after the new Afghan Government came to office to essentially strike up a compact between the new Afghan Government and the international community for the way forward, including the need for much more stringent standards so far as corruption is concerned; much more effective work, so far as anti-narcotics is concerned; and the need for - at some point in the future - a political reconciliation between the political forces in Afghanistan.

So I welcome very much the hosting of the conference by the United Kingdom, and at this stage, I'll be representing Australia.

QUESTION: Just on whaling, what does the Government think about the threat by Sea Shepherd to do a citizen’s arrest of Japanese whalers?

STEPHEN SMITH: I can't recall the name of the commentator or the international legal expert who described it in less than complementary language. From time to time you see things which you can describe as a stunt, and this is one of them.

QUESTION: If they do go ahead with it, though, what will be the Government's response to that?

STEPHEN SMITH: Our response would be that to seek to affect that would run the risk again of high risk on the high seas that is the sort of conduct which we've continually urged parties on the high seas to avoid.

QUESTION: Just on whaling. You mentioned earlier that one of the reasons the investigations [indistinct] close to Australia's exclusive economic zone, is there a concern here that [indistinct] that perhaps the whalers are operating in a zone where they shouldn't be operating?

STEPHEN SMITH: No. The waters around the Antarctic are of course subject to the Antarctic Treaty, which Australia is a party to. Not all countries in the world recognise the jurisdiction of that treaty. But that is a separate point - two reasons why Australia is determined to initiate a fact-finding investigation so far as the recent terrible collision was concerned.

One factor was that it was very close to our exclusive economic zone. And one thing we do want to do is just to make precisely sure that the location we're working on was the actual location of the collision, because it was close to our economic - exclusive economic zone.

Secondly, it occurred in our search and rescue area, and fortunately, while no rescue was required, we do feel some obligation to initiate an inquiry as a result of it being in our search and rescue area, and close to our exclusive economic zone.

As well, of course, is our long-standing position about the need for safety on the high seas.

On this occasion, it was bolstered by the fact that in December of last year, I - together with the Netherlands Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, and New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully issued a joint statement calling on the parties to restrain themselves and act with due care. Joined by New Zealand and the Netherlands because the ships concerned have either Netherlands or New Zealand flags.

The ship involved in the collision with the Japanese whaling vessel was a New Zealand flagship, and the Sea Shepherd is a Dutch flagship. So the obligation in terms of investigation as to the cause of the collision forwards to the flag nations - on this occasion, New Zealand and Japan. We have voluntarily decided to conduct our own fact-finding investigation because of those factors.

QUESTION: Just on Stern Hu, you said that you would wait, await the [indistinct], but you also reiterated the desire for this to happen transparently and expeditiously. So what is a desirable timetable?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as soon as possible. We would of course want the decision made as quickly as possible, but I am at pains to make the point because I have seen in today's media suggestions of a six week timetable. And I don't want false hope or false expectation to occur.

We have continually urged the Chinese authorities to deal with this matter expeditiously and transparently. My understanding of Chinese law and practice is that in the first instance, the Shanghai prosecutor does have six weeks to make a decision, but that period of time is able to be extended.

I don't want people to proceed on the potentially false premise that a decision must be made within a six week period.

I'm not putting a timetable on it. I would of course prefer that the matter was resolved as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Given that [indistinct] so long, though, do you think it's unlikely that he will be able to walk free after this [indistinct]?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well he is subject to Chinese criminal law and procedures, and again I've made the point repeatedly over the period that we need to take this step by step. He was detained: and he was initially detained, it was said, by Chinese authorities, as a consequence of concerns about state secrets and espionage.

When he was formally detained for the purposes of investigation it was for bribery and commercial matters, which we welcomed. Now that that investigation has been completed, it's a matter for the Shanghai prosecutor to determine whether and if charges will be preferred and a trial proceed, and we should await that decision by the prosecutor.

QUESTION: If these charges are so serious, why do you think they haven't charged the company [indistinct]?

STEPHEN SMITH: The individuals of the company, Stern Hu, an Australian citizen, and three Chinese nationals, have been detained, and the circumstance that I have outlined so far as Stern Hu is concerned apply equally to the three Chinese nationals.

QUESTION: So, they've already been charged, but you're saying we're waiting to see whether the charges will be preferred?

STEPHEN SMITH: Under Chinese practise people can be detained, subject to investigation. They are then formally detained when the nature of the investigation is outlined or determined. That occurred in August, and since that time the investigation has been underway.

Yesterday we were advised by Chinese officials that the investigation had concluded. The matter is now in the hands of the Shanghai prosecutor to determine whether a trial will proceed.

QUESTION: [Inaudible question]

STEPHEN SMITH: It is a different system of criminal law than we have here and so we need to apply ourselves to their processes, not to our own.

The key point now is whether a trial proceeds. That's now a decision for the Shanghai prosecutor to make.

QUESTION: Just back on [indistinct] quickly, when is the Government to release its advice on whether or not legal action can be taken against the Japanese?

STEPHEN SMITH: In accordance with the long standing practice of all Australian Governments, we don't propose to release our legal advice. We certainly wouldn't propose to release our legal advice on such a matter that would, of course, only benefit the potential other parties to any international legal case.

But we have made it clear that we want this matter to be resolved through diplomatic efforts, which are continuing both at bilateral and multilateral levels. But if those efforts are not successful, as the Prime Minister has made clear, as I've made clear, as Mr Garrett, the Environment Minister has made clear, and as the Acting Prime Minister has made clear in recent days, we reserve the right to initiate legal action in the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

But we remain of the view that our diplomatic efforts have not exhausted themselves, and we want to seek to resolve this matter diplomatically.

QUESTION: Considering the relationship, I suppose, with China, regarding Stern Hu, the relationship with Japan regarding whaling, and the situation with Indian students being attacked in Australia, are Australia's relations with its neighbours at its lowest [indistinct]?

STEPHEN SMITH: On the contrary, I think with India you could argue that our relationship with India has never been at a higher level, given the signing of the strategic partnership between Prime Minister Singh and Prime Minister Rudd late last year.

So far as China is concerned, we've had our moments in the recent period, but in the course of those moments we saw the largest single trade deal signed between Australian and China, so far as liquefied natural gas or any other commodity is concerned.

So far as Japan is concerned, as I say, we have a comprehensive economic and strategic relationship with Japan, and both Australia and Japan agree that our strong disagreement over whaling won't disturb it.

I think I can make the same point about all three relationships. The relationships are different because they involve different countries, but in each area that you've drawn attention to we either have a disagreement or a difficulty. But the strength of each of the relationships are such that they can deal with and cater for that disagreement or that difficulty, without the strength of the overall relationship being disturbed.

That's been our attitude with our relationship with China over the course of the most recent period. It is a long-standing attitude so far as Japan is concerned, and it applies, as well, to India, and this was one of the subjects of discussion with my counterpart, External Affairs Minister Krishna, yesterday, where we both agreed that we did not want difficulties, so far as Indian students and urban crime in Australia are concerned, to get in the way of what S.M. Krishna described as an excellent relationship.

When we came to office we indicated that we wanted our relationship with India to go to the front rank of our bilateral relationships and we've been making, in our view, good and steady progress, and we continue to want that to occur.

QUESTION: With Fiji, it's been reported that USA has been urging better relations or improving relationships between Australia and New Zealand and Fiji. Are you aware of any approaches from either Mrs Clinton or anyone else [indistinct]?

STEPHEN SMITH: In the past I've had conversations about Fiji with US officials. And I'd expect when Secretary of State Clinton is here next week, that she and I would have a conversation about Fiji. But it's not for me to ascribe to the United States its policy, but the long standing position of the United States is that Fiji returns to democracy. In that respect, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the Pacific Islands Forum are at one. Everyone wants to see Fiji return to democracy and stop being isolated from the regional international community.

I think, also, everyone agrees that the way forward is to continue to make that very strong point that we don't want Fiji to continue to be under a military regime, we don't want the coup culture in Fiji to continue. Fiji has to return to democracy, but at some point Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands Forum, the regional international community, need to embark on some form of dialogue to assist in that process.

QUESTION: But it's taken the pressure off [indistinct] New Zealand [indistinct].

STEPHEN SMITH: No, I don't categorise it in that way at all. It is very important, in my view, that an important Pacific country like New Zealand is in the position to discharge its obligations to its citizens in Fiji, but also to be able to discharge its diplomatic relationship and its diplomatic obligations with Fiji.

Just because a country has a disagreement with a particular country is not a reason to not have diplomatic relations.

We regretted very much that our High Commissioner was expelled. It was more in sorrow than in anger we expelled the Fijian High Commissioner, we would want that position rectified. I can't see it being rectified immediately. There will be a fair bit of water that goes under the bridge before it is, but we want that to occur. That's pretty much standard practice.

We need to have a dialogue with Fiji, we need to…

QUESTION: Are there any concerns about Chinese fear of influence in the Pacific?

STEPHEN SMITH: The fear so far as Fiji is concerned, is not influenced by any particular nation, it is its continued and continuing isolation and its withdrawal from democracy. A return to democracy will see Fiji return to the regional international community.

I worry very much about Fiji's isolationism, which is one reason why I'm strongly of the view that, at some point in the cycle, we need to have a dialogue with them.

QUESTION: [Indistinct] domestic question [indistinct]. Are you disappointed that the days of families heading down to [indistinct] on the foreshore and having a glass of wine while [indistinct].

STEPHEN SMITH: I'll leave that to the local authorities.

QUESTION: I mean, d… have you - in the years past, have you watched the Skyworks and?

STEPHEN SMITH: In years past I've watched the Skyworks, either from the safety of a high rise building like this or from the safety of the foreshore.

QUESTION: But did you have a glass of wine, in years past?

STEPHEN SMITH: In years past I was more into a glass of beer. These days I'm more into a glass of wine.

QUESTION: But no comment on, you know, no thoughts?

STEPHEN SMITH: Look, it is clearly one of those issues where the relevant authorities, both state and local, are endeavouring to balance two things. Firstly, the capacity of the ordinary Perth resident or West Australian to enjoy themselves without being bothered by other people's conduct.

But other people's conduct in previous years, causing restrictions or requirements to be imposed, it's, I regret, the age old story of the bad conduct of the few adversely impacting on the many.

But I - I'm not going to do anything other than leave it to the state and local authorities to deal with.

QUESTION: [Inaudible question]

STEPHEN SMITH: Yes, I am.

QUESTION: [Inaudible question]

STEPHEN SMITH: It is, and I've made…

QUESTION: Are you going to make a comment about these…

STEPHEN SMITH: I've just - I've made my comment.

QUESTION: Last question. Did you invite [indistinct] to Perth?

STEPHEN SMITH: No, I didn't invite Mrs Clinton to Perth. I invited her to come to Australia for the purpose of conducting the AUSMIN talks.

If, at some stage in the future Mrs Clinton wants to come to Perth, I'm sure the good folk of Perth would welcome that very much, as would I.

All right. Thanks. Cheers.

ENDS

Media inquiries

• Minister's Office: (02) 6277 7500
• Departmental Media Liaison: (02) 6261 1555