By: Tuífua Vailena
Pacific Islands News Association President Kalafi Moala says the Prime Minister is entitled to decide who attends his press conferences following a dispute with 88.1FM owner Etuate Lavulavu. But questions remain over whether an official Government press conference can exclude an entire media organisation, and how the separate regulatory action against the broadcaster is being handled.
The controversy surrounding 88.1FM owner Etuate Lavulavu and his access to Government press conferences has taken a new turn, with Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) President Kalafi Moala saying the dispute should not be regarded as a media freedom issue.
Speaking on Setita’s podcast, Moala was questioned about Lavulavu reportedly being prevented from attending a Prime Minister’s press conference.
Moala said Lavulavu had personally attacked the Prime Minister through his radio station and argued that it was the Prime Minister’s prerogative whether to invite him.
In essence, Moala’s position was that the Government press conference was being put on by the Prime Minister and he could decide whom he wanted to invite.
It is an important intervention from the head of the Pacific’s regional media organisation and introduces another side to a debate that has increasingly been framed around press freedom.
But it does not necessarily settle the issue.
A personal dispute or Government press conference?
There is an important distinction between a Prime Minister declining a personal interview with a journalist and a journalist being excluded from an official Government press conference.
The Prime Minister’s Office itself has described its media briefings as official press conferences and said they form part of Government’s broader commitment to “transparency, accountability, and open engagement with the public.”
Tonga Independent News sought comment from the Prime Minister’s Office on the criteria used to determine access to these press conferences. No response had been received at the time of publication.
That raises a legitimate question over whether attendance at such events should ultimately be determined by the Prime Minister’s personal relationship with an individual journalist or media organisation.
Lavulavu owns 88.1FM, which has been openly critical of the Prime Minister.
However, the issue subsequently extended to Amanda Vaipulu, a reporter for the Tonga Chronicle. Both the newspaper and 88.1FM are owned by Takiama Companies Ltd.
Vaipulu was reportedly refused entry when she attended a subsequent Government press conference representing the newspaper.
The fact that both journalists work within the same media company changes the context. This is not evidence of unrelated journalists from across Tonga’s media being excluded.
But it raises a different question: if Government has a legitimate grievance with Lavulavu personally, should that grievance extend to another journalist employed by the same media company attending an official press conference in her own professional capacity?
Conduct and access are separate questions
Press freedom does not mean journalists are beyond criticism. If Lavulavu has personally attacked the Prime Minister, questions can legitimately be asked about whether his broadcasts meet appropriate professional and journalistic standards, and the Prime Minister is entitled to respond publicly to reporting he considers inaccurate or unfair.
But a journalist’s conduct and a Government’s access rules are not automatically the same issue. Government may establish reasonable requirements for accreditation, security and professional conduct at official press conferences — what matters is that those requirements are clear, transparent and consistently applied. If a journalist or media organisation is excluded, there should be a clear explanation of what rule has been breached, and whether the restriction applies to the individual journalist or extends to the entire organisation, as it appears to have with Vaipulu.
Regulatory action adds another dimension
The controversy is also occurring against the backdrop of separate regulatory action involving 88.1FM.
The Communications Commission has warned the station over its broadcasts, with the possibility of regulatory consequences for its broadcasting licences.
That process must be distinguished from the dispute over access to Government press conferences. There is presently no evidence before Tonga Independent News establishing that the regulatory action was directed by the Prime Minister or was politically motivated.
However, the institutional relationship makes transparency particularly important.
Prime Minister Lord Fakafanua is also the Minister responsible for MEIDECC, which includes the Communications portfolio.
Under Tonga’s Communications Act 2015, the Minister responsible for communications exercises general supervision over communications-sector matters and can issue written policy directions to the Regulator. The Act also requires the Regulator to give effect to lawful general policy directions issued by the Minister.
At the same time, the law places an equally important safeguard around individual regulatory decisions.
The Regulator is required to act transparently and fairly and perform its functions without political or commercial interference. The Act describes it as an independent, autonomous and impartial body.
The Communications Commission itself describes the structure as separating Government policymaking through MEIDECC from independent regulation, including licensing and compliance enforcement.
There is no evidence that the Prime Minister has interfered with the Commission’s handling of 88.1FM.
Nevertheless, when a broadcaster is simultaneously involved in a public dispute with a Prime Minister who also holds the Communications portfolio, the independence and transparency of any regulatory process involving that broadcaster become particularly important.
