Interviews

Leadership in the Pacific Islands:

Fiji and Papua New Guinea
Guest: Tess Newton Cain
Published: November 18, 2014
In a recent interview, you mentioned concerns
about Fiji making moves to reassert itself as a
regional power following the elections. Even so,
it seems that Australia is moving quickly to
embrace Fiji. And, Australian Foreign Minister
Julie Bishop appears to be backing Fijis efforts
towards greater political and economic influence
in the region. Is this a risk for other Pacific
Countries? Or, in other words, could it skew the
power in the Pacific toward Fiji?
I would start by saying that I have a little bit of an
issue with the premise of that question. Fijis lynchpin
position in the region does not require Australias
backing for other Pacific Island Countries to
recognize the importance of Fiji. Weve had
numerous statements prior to the election, that have
indicated that other Pacific Island Countries have
always seen Fiji as having a role to play and have
always wanted to have a relationship with Fiji.
The Prime Minister of Samoa described Fijis
expulsion from the Pacific Islands Forum as being
traumatic for the rest of the region. And, as we know
within the Melanesian grouping, they actually walked
a fine line in order to maintain their relationship with
Fiji - even during Fijis suspension from the Forum.
So I dont think the other Pacific Island Countries are
looking to Australia to legitimize Fijis position within
the region. Neither do I think that anyone is
particularly surprised that Fiji is looking to reclaim its
place as the gateway to the region.
What I do see is a changed environment, and
perhaps the most significant change is the stepping
up of Papua New Guinea to take on a regional
leadership role - something that was not present in

2006. That creates a changed dynamic and I think

the real risk is for Australia.
My concern is that Australia has focused a lot on
strong bilateral relationships with both Papua New
Guinea and Fiji, which is one dynamic that needs to
be managed. But that seems to be extent of
Australias Pacific engagement. There has been
insufficient attention paid by Canberra to how to
develop relations with the region as a whole and
particularly the smaller island states.
I had a conversation with the Prime Minister of
Vanuatu last week. And, he indicated that they
expect more from Australia and New Zealand Australia in particular. So I am somewhat concerned
about
this
Australian
version
of
regional
engagement. Before the current Australian
government took office, we were promised better
Pacific engagement what we have seen is this
strong focus on Fiji, a strong focus on Papua New
Guinea, and very little attention anywhere else.
Regarding this recent conversation that you had
with the Prime Minister of Vanuatu where he
expressed
disappointment
in
Australias
engagement with Vanuatu can you expand on
this was this in terms of financial investment or
political engagement, or both?
The issue that we were speaking on would fall under
the category of political engagement wanting
Australia and New Zealand to be present in
conversations about regional political issues that
matter. We have heard this from others - Tony De
Brum has expressed concern on behalf of the
Marshall Islands about why Prime Minister Tony
Abbott was not at the Pacific Islands Forum; asking
why Australia didnt go to the climate change
meeting, why climate change isnt on the agenda for
the G20 There are numerous murmurings about
Where are you? Where is the Australian voice on
these matters? We hear your voice on issues that
matter to you, but we are concerned about other
things and dont hear your voice on these.

Pacific Islands Society | Interviews | November 18, 2014

Over the last few years, we have witnessed a
proliferation in regional agencies - the
Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), the Pacific
Island Development Forum (PIDF), the Pacific
Islands Forum (PIF) and the Polynesian Leaders
Group (PLG). Do you see the growth in agencies
as an indication that efforts for practical
regionalism are working? Or, do you think that
we are witnessing the disintegration of Pacific
unity?
This is a good question and it is one that I am
currently working out in my own mind - whether the
formation of blocs, such as the Melanesian
Spearhead Group are indicators of a failure of
diplomatic endeavors at a regional level or whether it
is a more nuanced iteration of that which will lead to
strengthening. Certainly, the rhetoric would be the
latter. When you talk to people at the Melanesian
Spearhead Group for instance, they are very clear
that the intention is not to undermine regional
architecture, that they see themselves as adding to
and complementing a more nuanced layer if you like.
I did some work last year with Matt Dornan from the
Development Policy Centre on pooled service
delivery in the region which is but one aspect of
regionalism. We looked at the initiatives of pooled
service delivery in the region - which ones worked
and which ones hadnt and what may have been the
factors that influenced that. What we found was that
there appears to be more likelihood of success of
that sort of approach to service delivery in subregional groupings.
For example, the Parties to the Nauru Agreement
(PNA) that brings together the fishing countries. If
you bring together a small group that all agree that
this is important to us and something we all care
about then there is a higher chance of success.
There are extra challenges with political buy-in at the
pan-regional level. But the question is, is are regional
sub-groupings sustainable? Now with all the subregional agencies, questions are arising on the
product of these groupings. The Melanesian
Spearhead Group may argue that they have a trade

agreement, but the Pacific Island Development

Forum is yet to produce anything.
You mentioned the challenges of addressing
issues at the pan-regional level for a region as
diverse as the Pacific, and the benefits of
collaborating and driving action at a sub-regional
level on some issues. In terms of climate change
however, this is and will continue to be a panregional challenge. Does the increasing influence
of sub-regional groups or blocks create an issue
for cohesive and coherent message framing of
climate change in the Pacific from issue
identification to requesting action from the
international community?
Climate change is not an area I focus on too much in
my work, but what we seem to be seeing is the
skewing of the message to respond to options for
financing and aid in whatever form that comes whether that be the Global Climate Fund or
otherwise. Everyone starts directing projects and
objectives to where the newest pot of money is.
Unfortunately, with this funding, there is no
guarantee that the pot of money is actually available.
There have been many pledges, and I believe this is
something raised by the Premier of Niue at the
recent SIDS meeting plenty of pledges but we are
yet to see the cold, hard cash. And what that then
leads to, is everyone has to maintain their individual
reason why they have to have a share of that pot of
money it is this that can inhibit the maximizing of
opportunities to work in a cohesive way.
In terms of the key message that this is an issue for
the Pacific now, it is threatening our sovereignty and
livelihoods and is an existential threat, that message
is very consistent across the region. All Pacific
leaders do attest to this and have signed up to this
rhetoric, although some voices are louder than
others in the international arena given how pressing
challenges are for them at this time. Messaging and
expectations around action will vary given the
geographical diversity of the region. But the bedrock
message is in place - this is something we are

Pacific Islands Society | Interviews | November 18, 2014

dealing with now, and is something we need help
with.
Continuing with this topic of regional agencies,
you have previously spoken on PACER plus
negotiations and sticking points, but what role
will regional agencies like the MSG and the PIDF
play in the effective implementation of PACER
plus. With the growth, engagement and influence
of these regional agencies, will we start to see
international negotiations in our region with
supra-national groups such as MSG and PIDF,
rather than with individual countries?
PACER-plus negotiations are not envisioned to be
with individual countries, they are envisioned to be
with all of the Pacific Islands Forum countries
currently only 13 countries are being represented as
Fiji has not been part of these talks and if Fiji
chooses not to re-join the Forum they will continue to
not be part of these talks. There are indications that
perhaps Australia in particular is considering picking
off individual countries to set up bilateral trade
agreements with, most notably Papua New Guinea
and Fiji.
There may be some very early tentative indications
that the Melanesian Spearhead Group would
contemplate entering into trade negotiations with
Australia, as a group. Leaving the PACER plus to
follow whatever track it may do. Essentially the issue
with trade negotiations in PACER plus is that there is
no benefit in a standard FTA for Pacific Countries.
Sparing Fiji, the island countries have no established
manufacturing industry. So, hypothetically, if
Australia is to enter into a standard trade agreement
with the MSG, there would be no benefit for the
Melanesian countries. The Pacific island countries
are looking for the plus and it is the plus that
Australia and New Zealand are making very, very
slow headway with.
Are you talking about labor migration?
Yes, labor migration and development assistance
are the two sticking points. Pacific Island leaders

have prepared texts and taken this to Ministerial

discussions, but received little in response. So, while
Australia and New Zealand are intransigent about
not wanting to include labour mobility into an
agreement, they are not going to get very far. That is
not to say that they cant take something like the
Seasonal Workers Program and develop in into
something that can be sold to the Pacific and set
that up in a way that the Pacific Island Countries can
accept it as a stand alone mechanism to facilitate
labour mobility. But what we have right now is the
worse of both worlds a seasonal workers program
that isnt delivering and we have a trade agreement
that the Pacific Island Countries dont want.
The Australian Aid-for-trade policy has been
criticized as not being contextually appropriate
for the Pacific Island Countries given the
acknowledged barrier to global trade including
geographic isolation. However, regional trade
and collaboration has promise there are
opportunities for pooling of services as you have
mentioned, and pooled purchases to overcome
economies of scale, as well as tourism bundling.
How could Australia better assist feasible,
regional trade partnerships? Could regional
agencies such as the MSG and PIDF play a
bigger part in directing and applying aid of this
kind?
The conversations that Ive had with people that
spend a lot more time than I do worrying about trade
in the Pacific, is that what we dont want to see is aid
being used to set up trade agreements. We dont
want that money going on flying people around to
produce fancy trade text agreements because
essentially none of that is of any use if you dont
have anything to sell. So in terms of assisting Pacific
Island countries to trade whether locally or
internationally, where that money needs to be going
is into stimulating the productive sectors in those
countries. Where those productive sectors are will
vary country to country some have a lot of
agricultural opportunities, some do not some
countries the only thing they have to sell is their
labor and therefore need access to labor migration.

Pacific Islands Society | Interviews | November 18, 2014

So that is really what Aid-for-Trade needs to be
about. Setting up an agreement or mechanism is not
what is needed we dont need that. What we need
is to help people access what opportunities are
already there, and be producing economic activity
internally then from there, look to trading
internationally.
Tourism is an interesting one. I had a very
interesting conversation with a colleague a few
months ago and he said that if only 5% of people
from Mainland China that went to Australia on
holiday were sold a side trip to one of the Pacific
Island Countries near to Australia, it would have a
huge impact on the Pacific tourism industry. So I
asked him, what is the biggest stumbling block? He
said the biggest stumbling block is that Australian
Immigration wont give them a multi-entry visa. So,
there is no point in Australia and New Zealand telling
the Pacific Island Countries they have to develop
their tourism and infrastructure if that one thing is
stopping potential tourists accessing the Pacific.
These are the sorts of things when we need to talk
about when considering Australian and New Zealand
engagement in the Pacific; there is more to engaging
with the Pacific than how we spend the aid budget.
There are changes needed across all government
departments.
Think about agriculture. There are plenty of
agricultural products that the Pacific produces that
could be exported to Australia, sure there are issues
in infrastructure and transport, but one of the biggest
stumbling blocks for getting Pacific agricultural
products into Australia is quarantine and phytosanitary issues. Its not that the products from the
Pacific dont satisfy the requirements, its that the
applications can take up to a decade to be
processed by the Australian authorities so there is a
great backlog of produce just waiting for approval.
They havent been rejected; they just havent been
given the approval.

Guest
Tess Newton Cain is a Non-Resident Fellow at the
Lowy Institute for International Policy.

Interviewer
Lora Vaioleti is the Adjunct Fellow for Polynesian
Affairs at the Pacific Islands Society.

Disclaimer
The views expressed respectively are those of

the interviewer and interviewee.