An interview with the representative of Australia in the Pacific Islands Forum

Lea Koh | Australian Associated Press

---

The PIF has hit another snag as representatives have differing priorities regarding the next topic of discussion, splitting between resolving the question of regionalism and moving on to the next topic of climate-related statelessness.

While the Forum enters a temporary lull, the representatives of Australia have shared some of their solutions and their comments on future topics of discussion.

With the commencement of the PIF, one of the largest concerns of the member states was the tension between two of its observer states, the US and the People’s Republic of China. Both nations have offered support to the Blue Pacific countries, such as through financial assistance and the lending of technology.

When asked to comment on how the PIF should respond to this, the Australian

representatives noted that “attempting to mediate or solve the US-China conflict is far beyond our scope in the PIF.”

“Every nation has differing ties to the superpowers. We must recognise the utility that bilateral agreements can bring to the table, but we cannot allow external superpowers to erode our sovereignty.”

The representatives dissuaded accepting direct financial aid or monetary loans, saying that “external co-operation must be related to capacity building, and the intentions of all parties involved must be transparent.”

This highlights a perspective increasingly focused on the long-term, with the entire Pacific’s economic sustainability in mind, rather than simply leveraging bilateral ties for immediate profit.

This viewpoint is mirrored by other Pacific representatives, as the Forum has consistently remained cautious about accepting external help.

In accordance, foreign powers such as the US are committed to respecting the Pacific’s sovereignty, emphasising that certain measures such as intelligence sharing should be done on a “voluntary basis”.

Currently, Australia remains neutral to both the US and China.

The representatives encouraged other Pacific states to do so as well, stating that “not taking sides is the only way to prevent our security from being infringed on”.

This reflects how Australia values its alliances with both the US and China, while rejecting the notion that the Pacific countries must choose between the two.

However, Australia’s ability to act with an independence that reflects its own interests may not extend to the rest of the Pacific nations, especially those facing severe national debt.

Therefore, considering their high level of development, the representatives affirmed that “Australia currently provides considerable funding, such as through the Regional Development Pacific Programme.”

“We are committed to helping our Pacific neighbours, and will continue to do so in the future, which would reduce reliance on external aid.”

Australia’s Development Programme aims to support other Pacific countries in various sectors, such as education, gender equality, and combating “the threat of climate change”.

However, this claim may not entirely be true. For many smaller nations, Australia’s efforts towards environmental protection have not been satisfactory.

Australia's continued use of fossil fuel and natural gas has been criticised by Tuvalu Climate Minister Maina Talia, who stated that this was “incompatible with a viable future” for the low-lying Pacific nations.

To many Pacific states, although Australia acknowledges the risks of climate change, its deeds do not match up with its words, given Australia’s status as a top exporter of fossil fuels and their investments in the natural gas industry.

For Pacific regionalism to thrive, there is an urgent need for Australia to improve its approach to environmental protection in order to gain trust from its neighbours.

This is especially important, as climate change will lead to rising sea levels, projected to completely submerge multiple Pacific islands, such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands.

This would lead to an influx of “climate refugees” fleeing to nearby countries, such as Australia and New Zealand.

“Australia is open to migration, and we will invest in social infrastructure for the refugees,” the representatives said.

However, the question remains as to the extent of support Australia is willing to give to citizens who are not its own.

In June, Australia offered a “climate visa” to citizens of Tuvalu, with the intention of

providing a pathway for Polynesian countries “as climate impacts worsen”.

When asked if Australia planned to extend this visa programme to other nearby nations, the representatives stated that Australia could not “accept just everyone” into the migration scheme, and that they would have to “consider the country and its applicants” before they could do so.

As of now, the visa allows just 280 Tuvaluan citizens to gain permanent residency in Australia per year due to limitations in Australia’s existing social infrastructure. At such a rate, it would take roughly 30 years in total for Tuvalu’s citizens to relocate to Australia.

When Tuvaluans already face severe floods alongside the looming threat of submergence, it seems unlikely that Australia will be able to manage the issue of climate refugees by itself.

Bibliography

AAP News. ‘Tuvalu and Climate Sector Want More from Australia’. 20 November 2025. https://aapnews.aap.com.au/news/tuvalu-and-climate-sector-want-more-from-australia.

‘Australia’. Accessed 11 December 2025. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/.

Bearak, Max. 2025. “A Special ‘Climate’ Visa? People in Tuvalu Are Applying Fast.” The New York Times, June 28, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/27/climate/climate-visa-tuvalu.html.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2021. “Australia’s Pacific Regional Development Program.” Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2021. https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/pacific/development-assistance-in-the-pacific.