Fiji President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu has urged legislators not to sow seeds of “fear and division” as the country moves towards a general election later this year.

Speaking at the opening of the fourth and final session of Parliament before the polls, Ratu Naiqama called on political leaders and their supporters to engage constructively and respect the rule of law before, during and after the elections.

Fijians are expected to head to the polls anytime between August 7 (earliest) this year and 6 February 2027 (latest).

• READ MORE: Fiji president opens final session of Parliament with call for unity
• Other Fiji politics reports

In an almost hour-long speech, which mentioned the word “unity” 17 times and covered a wide range of topics, Ratu Naiqama also confirmed the coalition government had commenced a review of the 2013 Constitution.

“The Constitution Amendment Bill, like all other Bills, will be made public and undergo an extensive consultation process with robust public debate and input before it is tabled to Cabinet and Parliament,” he said.

AI will have ‘detrimental effect on governance’
Other topics focused from unity in diversity to climate change and the threats posed by artificial intelligence.

Ratu Naiqama said he was at pains to underline factors which created division, noting the threat of false information.

On media and artificial intelligence, he said information was being disseminated at unprecedented speed but with little regard for accuracy.

“The misuse of artificial intelligence is an emerging threat that will have a detrimental effect on governance, national unity and peace,” he said.

“While freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of our democracy, it carries with it a grave responsibility.”

Fiji’s multicultural society is one of its greatest strengths, he said. However, unity did not arise automatically from diversity, he added.

“Unity must be consciously built through fair laws, inclusive policies, respectful leadership, and a shared commitment to the common good.”

Flagged Truth Commission
Ratu Naiqama flagged the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process as important to fostering unity, inclusivity and mutual understanding across all communities, saying its “findings and recommendations should be approached with maturity, guiding practical measures that strengthen reconciliation, institutional learning, and lasting social cohesion”.

The president described climate change as “the defining challenge of our time” and that Fiji would remain a global leader in climate advocacy, “while acting decisively at home”.

Looking at the region, Ratu Naiqama said Pacific nations were navigating complex geostrategic dynamics, while striving to preserve peace, cooperation and their sovereignty.

He reiterated the importance of the Ocean of Peace concept reinvigorated by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka at last year’s Pacific Forum leaders’ summit.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark believes the Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, caused a crisis for itself by not consulting Wellington before signing a deal with China.

The New Zealand government has paused more than $18 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands after the latter failed to provide satisfactory answers to Aotearoa’s questions about its partnership agreement with Beijing.

The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence.

• READ MORE: Mark Brown: Cook Islands ‘not consulted’ on NZ-China agreements
• Other Cook Islands crisis reports

The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Foreign Minister Winston Peters said had not been honoured.

Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown both have a difference of opinion on the level of consultation required between the two nations on such matters.

“There is no way that the 2001 declaration envisaged that Cook Islands would enter into a strategic partnership with a great power behind New Zealand’s back,” Clark told RNZ Pacific on Thursday.

Clark was a signatory of the 2001 agreement with the Cook Islands as New Zealand prime minister at the time.

“It is the Cook Islands government’s actions which have created this crisis,” she said.

Urgent need for dialogue
“The urgent need now is for face-to-face dialogue at a high level to mend the NZ-CI relationship.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has downplayed the pause in funding to the Cook Islands during his second day of his trip to China.

Brown told Parliament on Thursday (Wednesday, Cook Islands time) that his government knew the funding cut was coming.

He also suggested a double standard, pointing out that New Zealand had also entered deals with China that the Cook Islands was not “privy to or being consulted on”.

A Pacific law expert says that, while New Zealand has every right to withhold its aid to the Cook Islands, the way it is going about it will not endear it to Pacific nations.

Auckland University of Technology senior law lecturer and a former Pacific Islands Forum advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific that for Aotearoa to keep highlighting that it is “a Pacific country and yet posture like the United States gives mixed messages”.

“Obviously, Pacific nations in true Pacific fashion will not say much, but they are indeed thinking it,” Tekiteki said.

Misunderstanding of agreement
Since day dot there has been a misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on, and the word consultation has become somewhat of a sticking point.

The latest statement from the Cook Islands government confirms it is still a discrepancy both sides want to hash out.

“There has been a breakdown and difference in the interpretation of the consultation requirements committed to by the two governments in the 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration,” the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Immigration (MFAI) said.

“An issue that the Cook Islands is determined to address as a matter of urgency”.

Tekiteki said that, unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration was not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”.

He said the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.

However, he added that there was a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”.

This, for Clark, the New Zealand leader who signed the all-important agreement more than two decades ago, is where Brown misstepped.

Clark previously labelled the Cook Islands-China deal “clandestine” which has “damaged” its relationship with New Zealand.

RNZ Pacific contacted the Cook Islands Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment but was advised by the MFAI secretary that they are not currently accommodating interviews.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark maintains that Cook Islands, a realm of New Zealand, should have consulted Wellington before signing a “partnership” deal with China.

“[Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown] seems to have signed behind the backs of his own people as well as of New Zealand,” Clark told RNZ Pacific.

Brown said the deal with China complements, not replaces, the relationship with New Zealand.

• READ MORE: China deal ‘complements, not replaces’ NZ relationship, says Cook Islands PM
• Other China in Pacific reports
• The Joint Centenary Declaration of 2001

The contents of the deal have not yet been made public.

“The Cook Islands public need to see the agreement — does it open the way to Chinese entry to deep sea mining in pristine Cook Islands waters with huge potential for environmental damage?” Clark asked.

“Does it open the way to unsustainable borrowing? What are the governance safeguards? Why has the prime minister damaged the relationship with New Zealand by acting in this clandestine way?”

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Clark went into detail about the declaration she signed with Cook Islands Prime Minister Terepai Maoate in 2001.

“There is no doubt in my mind that under the terms of the Joint Centenary Declaration of 2001 that Cook Islands should have been upfront with New Zealand on the agreement it was considering signing with China,” Clark said.

“Cook Islands has opted in the past for a status which is not independent of New Zealand, as signified by its people carrying New Zealand passports. Cook Islands is free to change that status, but has not.”

Missing the mark
A Pacific law expert said there was a clear misunderstanding on what the 2001 agreement legally required New Zealand and Cook Islands to consult on.

Brown has argued that New Zealand does not need to be consulted with to the level they want, something Foreign Minister Winston Peters disagrees with.

AUT senior law lecturer and former Pacific Islands Forum policy advisor Sione Tekiteki told RNZ Pacific the word “consultation” had become somewhat of a sticking point:

“From a legal perspective, there’s an ambiguity of what the word consultation means. Does it mean you have to share the agreement before it’s signed, or does it mean that you broadly just consult with New Zealand regarding what are some of the things that, broadly speaking, are some of the things that are in the agreement?

“That’s one avenue where there’s a bit of misunderstanding and an interpretation issue that’s different between Cook Islands as well as New Zealand.”

Unlike a treaty, the 2001 declaration is not “legally binding” per se but serves more to express the intentions, principles and commitments of the parties to work together in “recognition of the close traditional, cultural and social ties that have existed between the two countries for many hundreds of years”, he added.

Tekiteki said that the declaration made it explicitly clear that Cook Islands had full conduct of its foreign affairs, capacity to enter treaties and international agreements in its own right and full competence of its defence and security.

There was, however, a commitment of the parties to “consult regularly”, he said.

For Clark, the one who signed the all-important agreement all those years ago, this is where Brown had misstepped.

Pacific nations played off against each other
Tekiteki said it was not just the Joint Centenary Declaration causing contention. The “China threat” narrative and the “intensifying geopolitics” playing out in the Pacific was another intergrated issue.

An analysis in mid-2024 found that there were more than 60 security, defence and policing agreements and initiatives with the 10 largest Pacific countries.

Australia was the dominant partner, followed by New Zealand, the US and China.

A host of other agreements and “big money” announcements have followed, including the regional Pacific Policing Initiative and Australia’s arrangements with Nauru and PNG.

“It would be advantageous if Pacific nations were able to engage on security related matters as a bloc rather than at the bilateral level,” Tekiteki said.

“Not only will this give them greater political agency and leverage, but it would allow them to better coordinate and integrate support as well as avoid duplications. Entering these arrangements at the bilateral level opens Pacific nations to being played off against each other.

“This is the most worrying aspect of what I am currently seeing.

“This matter has greater implications for Cook Islands and New Zealand diplomatic relations moving forward.”

Protecting Pacific sovereignty
The word sovereignty is thrown around a lot. In this instance Tekiteki does not think “there is any dispute that Cook Islands maintains sovereignty to enter international arrangements and to conduct its affairs as it determines”.

But he did point out the difference between “sovereignty — the rhetoric” that we hear all the time, and “real sovereignty”.

“For example, sovereignty is commonly used as a rebuttal to other countries to mind their own business and not to meddle in the affairs of another country.

“At the regional level is tied to the projection of collective Pacific agency, and the ‘Blue Pacific’ narrative.

“However, real sovereignty is more nuanced. In the context of New Zealand and Cook Islands, both countries retain their sovereignty, but they have both made commitments to “consult” and “cooperate”.

Now, they can always decide to break that, but that in itself would have implications on their respective sovereignty moving forward.

“In an era of intensifying geopolitics, militarisation, and power posturing — this becomes very concerning for vulnerable but large Ocean Pacific nations without the defence capabilities to protect their sovereignty.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

A Pacific journalism academic has warned proposed amendments to media laws in Papua New Guinea, if “ill-defined”, could mirror the harsh restrictions in Fiji.

Prime Minister James Marape’s government is facing fierce opposition from local and regional journalists for attempting to fasttrack a new media development policy.

The draft law has been described by media freedom advocates as “the thin edge of the web of state control”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES:  Dr Shailendra Singh speaks on the Fiji media law and draft PNG policy
• READ MORE: PNG’s proposed policy could lead to government control of the press
• APMN calls for ‘urgent rethink’ over PNG draft media regulation plan
• Other PNG media policy reports

PNG’s Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Department released the Draft Media Development Policy publicly on February 5. It aims “to outline the objectives and strategies for the use of media as a tool for development”.

The department gave stakeholders less than two weeks to make submissions on the 15-page document, but after a backlash the ICT chief extended the consultation period by another week.

“I recognise the sensitivity and importance of this reform exercise,” ICT Minister Timothy Masiu said after giving in to public criticism and extending the consultation period until February 24.

Masiu said he instructed the Information Department to “facilitate a workshop in partnership with key stakeholders”, adding that the Information Ministry “supports and encourages open dialogue” on the matter.

“I reaffirm to the public that the government is committed to ensuring that this draft bill will serve its ultimate purpose,” he said.

The new policy includes provisions on regulating the media industry and raising journalism standards in PNG, which has struggled for years due to lack of investment in the sector.

But media leaders in PNG have expressed concerns, noting that while there are areas where government support is needed, the proposed regulation is not the solution.

“The situation in PNG is a bit worrying if you see what happened in Fiji, even though the PNG Information Department has denied any ulterior motives,” University of the South Pacific head of journalism, Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, told RNZ Pacific.

“There are concerns in PNG. Prominent journalists are worried that the proposed act could be the thin edge of the wedge of state media control, as in Fiji,” Dr Singh said, in reaction to Masiu’s guarantee that the policy is for the benefit of media organisations and journalists.

“If you look at the Fiji situation, the Media Act was implemented in the name of democratising the media, ironically, and also improving professional standards.”

Dr Singh said this is what is also being said by the PNG government but “in Fiji the Media Act has been a disaster for media rights”.

“Various reports blame the Fiji Media Act for a chilling effect on journalism and they also hold the Act responsible for instilling self-censorship in the Fiji media sector,” he said.

“If the PNG media policy provisions are ill-defined, as the Fiji Media Act was, and if it has harsh punitive measures, it could also result in a chilling effect on journalism and this in turn could have major implications for democracy and freedom of speech in PNG.”

The Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) 2010 and its implementation meant that Fiji was ranked 102nd out of 180 countries by Reporters without Borders in 2022.

Earlier this month Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga publicly apologised to journalists for the harassment and abuse they endured during the Bainimarama government’s reign.

But Dr Singh said PNG appeared to have been “emboldened” by the Fijian experience.

Media freedom a Pacific-wide issue
He said other Pacific leaders had also threatened to introduce similar legislation and “this is a major concern”.

“Fiji and PNG are the two biggest countries in the Pacific [which] often set trends in the region, for better or for worse. The question that comes to mind is whether countries like Solomon Islands or Vanuatu will follow suit? [Because] over the years and even recently, the leaders of these two countries have also threatened the news media.”

A major study co-authored by the USP academic, which surveyed more than 200 journalists in nine countries and was published in Pacific Journalism Review in 2021, revealed that “Pacific journalists are among the youngest, most inexperienced and least qualified in the world”.

Dr Singh warned the research showed that legislation alone would not result in any significant improvements to journalism standards in Pacific countries, which is why committing money in training and development was crucial.

“Training and development are an important component of the Fiji Media Act. However, our analysis found zero dollars was invested by the Fiji government in training and development,” he said.

“If we are to take any lessons from Fiji, and if the PNG government is serious about standards, it needs to invest at least some of its own money in this venture of improving journalism.”

This is a sentiment shared by Media Council of PNG president, Neville Choi, who said: “If the concern is poor journalism, then the solution is more investment in schools of journalism at tertiary institutions, this will also improve diversity and pluralism in the quality of journalism.

“We need newsrooms with access to training in media ethics and legal protection from harassment,” Choi added.

Dr Singh said that without proper financial backing in the media sector “there is unlikely to be any improvement in standards, [but] just a cowered down or subdued media [which] is not in PNG’s public interest, or the national interest, given the levels of corruption in the country.”

APMN calls for ‘urgent rethink’
The publisher of the Pacific Journalism Review, the Asia Pacific Media Network, has also condemned the move, calling for an “urgent rethink” of the draft media policy.

The group is proposing for the communications ministry to “immediately discard the proposed policy of legislating the PNG Media Council and regulating journalists and media which would seriously undermine media freedom in Papua New Guinea”.

The network also cited the 1999 Melanesian Media Declaration as a guideline for Pacific media councils and said the draft PNG policy was ignoring “established norms” for media freedom.

The statement was co-signed by the APMN chair Dr Heather Devere; deputy chair Dr David Robie, a retired professor of Pacific journalism and author, and founding director of the Pacific Media Centre; and Pacific Journalism Review editor Dr Philip Cass, who was born in PNG and worked on the Times of Papua New Guinea and Wantok newspapers.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Fiji’s new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad says the good policies of the government that are in place will continue.

He said policies would only change through consultation and dialogue.

“People understand the policy direction of the new government,” Professor Prasad said.

• READ MORE: Christmas gift for Fiji: New political era balanced on a knife-edge
• Fiji’s new coalition cabinet ministers and assistant ministers
• Rabuka elected Fiji’s new PM, ending Bainimarama’s 16-year reign
• Other Fiji elections reports

“But that does not mean that tomorrow, we’re going to change every policy or everything that was being done or has been done in the past.

“We will review — we will look at those policies. Good policies that are there will continue.

“It will never be about changing policies willingly without thinking through, without consultation, without dialogue.”

He said one of the hallmarks of the style of the new government would be to make policies with appropriate consultation, appropriate evidence and through dialogue.

“So that the implementation of the policy is not only simple, easy, but also that people understand generally the impact of those policies,” Professor Prasad said.

“So yes, we will do this with humility with understanding and keep good policies and build on good policies that are there.”

Rakesh Kumar is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

In Vanuatu, one key party in the government says it will boycott tomorrow’s planned session of Parliament.

That session is due to consider several constitutional amendments and the leader of the Reunification of Movements for Change party, former Prime Minister Charlot Salwai, said there had been no consultation with civil society.

He said it was the people’s constitution and they had the right to have their say before approval by Parliament.

The planned changes include:

• extending the parliamentary term from four to five years,
• allowing cabinet to have 17 members — up from the current 13,
• involving mayors in the selection process for the head of state, and
• amendments that will allow a broader definition of who qualifies for citizenship.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.