Pacific defence ministers are taking a cautious approach to expanding the Pacific Response Group, a military force.
Although ministers previously agreed to consider giving it a broader role in responding to civil unrest, they have put the brakes on, not wanting to be rushed.
Australia's defence chief says any change must have "absolute consensus" among Pacific countries.
Pacific defence ministers have signalled they will not rush to expand the remit of a new military response group, with Australia's defence chief saying there must be "absolute consensus" about how it evolves.
The South Pacific Defence Ministers' Meeting (SPDMM) — which draws in Australia, Chile, Fiji, France, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Tonga — has wrapped up in Fiji.
On top of the agenda was the Pacific Response Group (PRG), which was formed in 2024 as part of a push from Australia and several other governments to develop a more coordinated response to natural disasters in the region.
Last year, the ministers endorsed a move to broaden the mandate of the PRG so it can also conduct "stabilisation operations" for Pacific nations that request military help to deal with civil unrest.
And in May this year, senior Pacific military officers endorsed a push for a new regional treaty that would govern how deployments take place, recommending Pacific leaders kickstart negotiations on a framework that would make it easier to rapidly send personnel to countries grappling with crises.
But while there is enthusiasm for the idea, it is also politically sensitive.
That is partly because the PRG can be seen as part of a broader push by Australia and its allies to block China from the security space, and partly because it will have to grapple with fraught questions around what legal immunity is offered to personnel deployed to other countries.
Some Pacific nations are also dealing with internal political issues — for example, Fiji is embroiled in an intense domestic debate on constitutional reform, and is likely to go to the polls before February next year.
On top of that, Pacific bureaucracies have also attempted to keep pace with the push for rapid change within the PRG just a couple of years after it was established.
When Pacific leaders met in Palau, they did not agree to kickstart negotiations on the treaty, signalling that they wanted to move more slowly on the issue.
And this afternoon, SPDMM defence ministers released a communique saying they had told senior military officers that the framework had to "consider the privileges and immunities relevant to HADR [humanitarian and disaster relief] and any future PRG stabilisation function".
The ministers also said they had agreed to take a "phased approach" to expanding the PRG's mandate, "recognising the importance of first consolidating and enhancing the PRG's humanitarian assistance and disaster relief [HADR] capabilities" before working to "include stabilisation operations".
Australian Defence Force chief Admiral Mark Hammond, who represented Australia at the meeting along with Assistant Defence Minister Peter Khalil, told the ABC that the group "must pay due respect to sovereign constitutional processes" and there had to be an "absolute consensus of an overlap with respect to national interest".
"We still need some time to work things through their constitutional processes and some of the nations at the table are on the cusp of national elections, some have only recently elected them or had a cabinet reshuffle, so these take time to bed down," Mr Hammond said.
But Admiral Hammond told the ABC there was still rock-solid support for the PRG at a "macro level" because it embodied the idea of Pacific-led security.
"When you look at the Pacific Response Group and the number of nations that are present in that, and you see that arriving as an initial response force to one of our Pacific Island nations, there will be representatives from that nation, in the PRG, that will be able to speak to the local issues, to help us cut through bureaucracy and to interpret their national interest into individual language that enables us to get on, deliver and support," he said.
One Pacific government representative, who requested anonymity to speak, said there was not any "opposition" to the PRG, which they said was seen as a "great idea."
But they said some of the questions around immunity and sovereignty, as well as the geopolitical backdrop, could be "a little bit sensitive".
Pacific security expert Anna Powles from Massey University said it was "not surprising that securing regional consensus is proving challenging".
"Some countries are suggesting the process has been rushed and have questions about where the agreement will sit within the regional security architecture," she said.
"It could be useful to locate the framework under the Biketawa Declaration, which has the credibility and the tested mechanisms to support regionally led responses."
The seven countries represented at SPDMM also expressed "grave concern" over China's ballistic missile test earlier this year, using much stronger language than was adopted at the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) leaders' meeting in Palau earlier this month.
"Ministers highlighted that the manner in which this activity was conducted risked undermining PIF leaders' declaration of the Blue Pacific Continent as an Ocean of Peace," they said.
"It also undermined leaders' call to engage with the Blue Pacific Continent in a manner that honours the Pacific Way, respects national sovereignty and supports national and Pacific-led approaches."