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

Feleti Sevele: Ladies and gentleman, thank you very much for coming this afternoon. We here are the Foreign Ministers of the Pacific Islands Forum: on my right, Murray McCully from New Zealand, Sam Abal from Papua New Guinea, and the Secretary General of the Pacific Island Forum, Neroni Slade. On my left Stephen Smith, Foreign Minister for Australia, Aveau from Samoa to represent their Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Willy Telavi from Tuvalu on the far left.

Now today we had a meeting and the main issue today was on the situation in Fiji and we did invite the interim Foreign Minister for Fiji Ratu Inoke Kubuabola to be here today to brief us on the situation in Fiji.

The Ministerial Contact Group has been tasked by the leaders of the Forum to monitor the development in Fiji and to report regularly to the leaders. Now we have got the Annual meeting of the Pacific Island Forum leaders in Vanuatu early August and hence the meeting today.

We had a very good meeting. We had a briefing on the Fiji situation firstly from the Secretary General of the Secretariat after which we then invited the Honourable interim Foreign Minister from Fiji to give us a brief on the situation in Fiji as from the interim government at the end of which we had a very frank and fruitful exchange on views on where we the Forum would like to see Fiji moving in future.

As you know, we took a couple of targeted measures against Fiji last year following the meeting in Papua New Guinea at the beginning of the year. It's a complex and ongoing issue and we have been invited to Fiji by the interim Foreign Minister and we intend to travel to Fiji perhaps towards the end of next month or early in July to assess the situation then and complete our report to the leaders of the Pacific Island Forum in Vanuatu.

Now I guess that's sufficient from me at the moment. We've got all the members here of the Group, they are ready and willing to answer any questions that you may ask on the subject. Ministers do any of you want to say something, if not, then it's over to you.

Journalist: To what extent does this mean there has been a relaxation in the relationship between the Pacific Island Forum and Fiji?

Stephen Smith: There has been no relaxation in the sense that the Pacific Island Forum remains very strongly attached to the unanimous resolution of its leaders that Fiji be suspended from the Forum because of its move away from democracy. But the Ministerial Contact Group has been charged with engaging Fiji from the moment of its creation, which actually occurred in Auckland in 2008, and we want to continue that dialogue to see whether it's possible for us to have influence on Fiji and to move Fiji back to democracy.

So there's no relaxation in the resolve of the Pacific Islands Forum to continue its very strong view that Fiji has to return to democracy.

Question: So there's been no relaxation in Fiji is that right, because they say no election before 2014?

Stephen Smith: The options before us are to not engage or to engage in a dialogue, and we think that dialogue is worth doing. And the interim Foreign Minister invited the Ministerial Contact Group to Fiji; we've been on two previous occasions.

We think it's worthwhile going back to Fiji on the same basis as we have in the past, which is to engage in a full conversation with the interested parties and the stakeholders and the individuals in Fiji about the path back to democracy for Fiji. No one's suggesting there is a magic or instant solution, but it's either engage in a dialogue or don't, and we think engaging in a dialogue is worthwhile.

Question: What did the Fiji Minister tell you today Mr McCully?

Murray McCully: The Fijian interim Foreign Minister gave us a fairly detailed report on what he saw as being progress in terms of economic developments and proposals for reform in Fiji. I am bound to say there were some shortcomings in his report which are not new ones.

There's been a consistent problem over recent times in that the engagement of people in Fiji in a dialogue about reform does not include all of the stakeholders and that remains a problem today. I think that the statement that we've made perhaps doesn't touch on that in any great detail but I think that all Ministers were concerned there was not a full engagement of all of the stakeholders in Fiji.

And so the report on progress and intended progress fell short in that respect and that is the reason that we've been unable to make significant progress.

Question: What good will going there do?

Murray McCully: It's not a question of whether going there will do any good, it's a question of what our job is. The Ministerial Contact Group was put in place first and foremost, as Mr Smith has said, to maintain dialogue, to maintain engagement. If things aren't going to get good tomorrow, maybe they will next week and the job of the Forum, the job of the MCG in particular, is to be around having those conversations when that opportunity arises.

Question: What do you rate the chances of an election before 2014?

Fred Sevele: At the moment I can't tell you that, I can't rate that now. You will have heard, you will have read, that the Commodore has stated that the election cannot be held before 2014. Everybody, of course, wishes that it will be before then but that is what has been stated and in the Minister's briefing to us this morning, that is the timetable that they are working towards.

Question: Mr Abal, do you agree with the Ministers sitting at the table that Fiji should be kept out of the Forum?

Sam Abal: It is the Forum's decision already concerning Fiji and we all stand by that. At the same time, I agree with Mr McCully in terms of the dialogue. To leave no dialogue is to throw Fiji to anything. It is important that a dialogue is maintained at the Forum level and by MCG as is our mandate and I think it's important that we continue the dialogue.

Whether we like what's going on or not in all international regional organisation there's really limited possibilities there but to keep a dialogue is very important so that in our contacts with them perhaps we will persuade them to come further into relations with us. The rest of the Pacific is democratic and there's no reason why Fiji should be holding its ground, come in and give the people the right to express themselves.

Question: How is the Forum getting independent information on Fiji?

Feleti Sevele: The Forum is getting independent information from its Secretariat, it's getting independent information from journalists like you, from media and we, today, got the Fiji government in to be given the chance to tell us how they see things and what their plans are for now and for the future.

Question: We know our colleagues in Fiji are having a pretty rough time at the moment, how can you depend on that information?

Feleti Sevele: I am sure they are getting information to you one way or another.

Question: But Dr Sevele, since last year things have got more draconian, we've had this rather rigorous media decree. Did the Minister this morning indicate to you whether they are going to press ahead with that?

Feleti Sevele: I think he did say that it hasn't been put into operation as yet but consideration is being given to that and if they were to see things stabilising, as he put it this morning, then they would move to remove that altogether.

Question: But what does he mean by stabilising? There's nobody destabilising Fiji.

Feleti Sevele: This is what he explained to us.

Question: Does he mean journalists are destabilising Fiji and need to be punished?

Feleti Sevele: No, he didn't specify.

Stephen Smith: I think there are a couple of points worth making. Firstly, the communiqué or the press release refers to a report that the MCG received from the Secretary General. There is no doubt that the thrust of the Secretary General's report was that since the last time we met as a MCG on Fiji, across the board things have got worse in Fiji. That's understood and the individual statements that you would have seen from Foreign Ministers over that period bears that out.

Secondly, in terms of some form of independent or different view of Fiji, the very reason that we want to return to Fiji on the same basis as we've been to Fiji twice, is that on both those occasions on previous visits we have sat down not just with the interim government but also with other players in the Fiji political process, including obviously former Prime Minister Qarase, the leader of the Labour Party, former Prime Minister Chaudhry, and the Leader of the Opposition at the time of the military coup Mick Beddoes and others - academics, think tanks and the like.

So that, in our view, is a, if not the most effective, way of getting a judgment as to the circumstances on the ground . But as a general proposition, I think it's quite clear that there is a view that things have got worse in Fiji rather than better and, secondly, of course, there is massive disappointment that having made a faithful undertaking to have an election by the first quarter of 2009, that the interim government is now talking in terms of 2014.

Part of our motivation in engaging, part of our motivation in having a dialogue, is that we may be able to have some influence on that timetable. I am not holding that out as a prospect but what we do know is that if we don't engage we'll have no prospect of influencing things in Fiji in a positive manner.

We would want Fiji to return to democracy tomorrow. We know that won't happen so we want to use every available means we can to see that it occurs sooner rather than later and not talking to Fiji doesn't, in our view, assist that process. But we've all made the point privately or publicly that dialogue can't be one-way, dialogue has to be a two-way street. In the past, myself, other ministers, have been critical of Fiji for that dialogue being effectively a one-way dialogue.

Question: Has Mr Kubuabola been able to offer you anything is this way?

Stephen Smith: An invitation to go to Fiji

Question: But that's hardly [inaudible]?

Stephen Smith: I've been there twice, I'm happy to go on a third occasion. I'd like on a third occasion to try and make progress. But what I do know is that if we don't go, if we don't engage, if we don't have the dialogue, however so difficult, then we won't make progress and Fiji will simply become more isolated and there'll be no chance for the regional community or the international community to positively influence the outcome.

Question: Do you intend on meeting with Bainimarama when you're over there?

Stephen Smith: On the last two occasions we have but we take these things step by step.

Question: Is there any way that the suspension against Fiji could be lifted without holding elections?

Stephen Smith: In my view, no.

Feleti Sevele: Listen to what Stephen is saying, I think it's important for on both sides we get reports. You have your own reports, there's a report today done by the Minister from Fiji, interim Minister, by the Contact Group going over and we'd like that to be understood well that to get a balanced report from both sides.

The government is heeding the report, the interim government, as well as other parties in the political spectrum in Fiji, but by going over we hope that various persons and individuals are able to give us a reliable written report. So that for both sides it is important that Fiji, while giving us a formal report today, gives us an opportunity to discuss and get another feedback from parts of that community so you can verify it on that position.

But I think it's an open thing - if allowed to talk with the other players in the political spectrum then it gives us a fairer representation of what is going on so I think that the point made by both Sevele and Murray is important, dialogue has got to continue. We have to visit even if it's three times or ten times or whatever. It is important that in the Pacific we try to solve the issue by continuing dialogue.

Question: Is there any move, Mr Sevele, to move the Foreign Secretariat offshore as things have got worse in Fiji?

Feleti Sevele: No. We heard this morning, whilst the Foreign Secretariat did experience some difficulties the past year or two, things have improved considerably since the appointment of Ratu Inoke Kubuabola and things have practically returned to normal in terms of the operations of the Home Secretariat and there hasn't been any discussion of that and I doubt that there would be a move. It's going to cost a lot, and taken from all sides at the moment, no, there hasn't been any discussion by the leaders of any move away from Fiji.

Question: Is there any move, Mr McCully, to relax any of the bans/sanctions against Fiji?

Murray McCully: No, that's an area in which the Forum obviously acts in concert. The reason for the bans has been that the principles that underpin the Forum relate to human rights, the rule of law and the maintenance of democracy, and in each of those three respects the assessment we have made is that there is no good news on the horizon, so we've had nothing to reward. So the issue of sanctions hasn't been discussed in that sense.

Question: So the progress report from Fiji is that there has been no progress, is this right?

Murray McCully: Well it's not the approach that Ratu Inoke brought to us but I think our considered assessment and bearing in mind that we haven't had the opportunity to hear from other stakeholders in Fiji, but the assessment we made was that there isn't good news.

Obviously there aren't going to be elections before 2014 and some would say that there is doubt even about that date. There's obviously been concern about human rights and the rule of law and that wasn't a very difficult assessment for the Ministers to make.

Question: So how are you going to use that information when you go to the meeting in Vanuatu?

Murray McCully: That is that of the leaders, there are processes that the MCG will file a report which will assist leaders but hopefully before then they will have an opportunity to make the visit that Dr Sevele has talked about and that will give us the ability to give a more considered and fuller report to Forum leaders.

Question: Was there a message that you gave the Minister today then?

Murray McCully: I don't think it is for us to go into detail about that. What I'd say is that it's important to maintain the engagement. I value the fact that Ratu Inoke was prepared to come and engage with MCG ministers and I think that the day in which we see progress in Fiji is made closer by the fact that we continue to talk.

Question: Can I just clarify your point earlier that once stability returns to Fiji something will happen over the media decree; does that mean that when stability comes, they will impose the media decree, or are they going to back off from the media decree?

Feleti Sevele: The indications that Ratu Inoke gave this morning is that there are elements that are there that are trying to destabilise Fiji and hence in their opinion the need to have these emergency decrees.

Question: I'm not talking about the emergency decree; I'm talking about the draft media decree which imposes considerable fines on journalists and seeks control and drives Rupert Murdoch out of Fiji. Did they tell you they are going to persist with that decree?

Feleti Sevele: I don't know that we specifically dealt with that in that respect. What they are saying is that there will be a move away from any decrees that limit the freedom of media once they are assured that the attempts by certain elements to create instability in Fiji are no longer there.

Question: Can I ask Mr Smith about whaling?

Stephen Smith: You don't want to ask Mr McCully first?

Question: I'm just wondering about the timing and whether that's going to undermine the diplomatic solution? And also it is a bit unhelpful considering there is a New Zealander facing charges in Tokyo.

Stephen Smith: Firstly, Environment Protection Minister Garrett and I announced on Friday that Australia would initiate action before the International Court of Justice in The Hague early this week, so those papers will be filed in the course of this week, potentially as early as today in The Hague.

Secondly, we for a long time said that if we came to the conclusion that we didn't believe diplomatic efforts both bilateral with Japan and multilateral through the IWC were going to meet our objective, which is to have Japan cease whaling in the Great Southern Ocean, that we would reserve the right to initiate legal proceedings and that's what we've done.

We don't believe that the bilateral discussions we've had with Japan or the multilateral discussions before the IWC will lead, from our perspective, to a successful outcome and that's why we've initiated the legal action.

We presented to the IWC working group a nine point plan which goes beyond that issue, goes to other more general matters as well. And we've made it clear that we will continue to engage in the IWC discussions in Morocco in June, and we will continue to be, as we have in the past, an active participant in the IWC so that's the first point.

Secondly, the New Zealand citizen who is before a court in Japan, there is no direct interest so far as Australia is concerned. He is a New Zealand citizen, we weren't one of the flagships in respect of which the incident occurred, nor did it occur in Australian waters so whilst obviously we are very conscious about the need for safety at sea and we've made strong remarks in that respect, this is a matter which from an international community point of view and a consular point of view, is a matter for New Zealand, so I don't see in that respect a link between the two.

More generally, so far as whaling is concerned with New Zealand, we have got a very close and strong working arrangement and Mr McCully and I speak about this matter on a regular basis and I spoke to Mr McCully in advance of our decision being made public, we didn't want New Zealand surprised about this matter. But historically Australia and New Zealand have worked very closely on these matters, not just whaling in the Great Southern Ocean but the Antarctic generally, and we will continue to do so.

Question: Don't you believe that you run the risk of losing the case and, therefore, Japan believing that it can continue whaling?

Stephen Smith: As I say, we didn't believe we were making sufficient progress or that sufficient progress was being made either in the bilateral discussions or the multilateral discussions to put us in a position where we thought our objectives would be achieved, and so we are trying to achieve our objectives through legal action.

Any legal action carries with it a chance or a prospect of success, equally there can be no guarantee of success, so we are confident that the action we have taken is the best action to advance our policy objective which is to see Japan cease whaling in the Southern Ocean.

Question: Mr McCully do you think that Australia's actions could be providing sanctioned approval as it were for Japan so that they continue whaling?

Murray McCully: No, I think that we've both got very similar tracts, both similar pathways here, but we're on different timetables. In part that's because New Zealand made the decision to allow Sir Geoffrey Palmer to be the chair of the support group where the discussions were taking place, that means we had to get more fully engaged in that process. As a consequence, our view has been consistently that we wanted to see whether we could get a diplomatic solution.

I was disappointed, and said so at the time, when the chair of the IWC and his deputy filed a report that opposed a consensus that was unacceptable to New Zealand. I've been exploring whether we can move some distance from that in terms of the conclusion we might reach in Agadir and we'll keep working on that, but the option of filing in the ICJ is something that we'll consider over the next week or two.

Question: Is Australia's timing helpful or unhelpful to the diplomatic process?

Murray McCully: Australia's timing is Australia's timing and New Zealand's timing will be New Zealand's timing. It just happens to be that it will be a few weeks later than them in determining the course of action we will follow.

ENDS

Media inquiries

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