In recent weeks, the Cook Islands declared a rā‘ui toroa — a national whale sanctuary — expanding protection across vast swathes of our moana and Ocean, Thomas Wynne writes.

On the surface, it appears a gesture of environmental leadership and a nod to indigenous stewardship that we all would agree with. 

But beneath the waves and beneath the press release, we must continue to ask those critical questions on consultation. In a conversation just this week, I was asked - what does it mean for us as a country, to declare the whale sacred while keeping the sea open to the potential of mineral extraction?

It’s not that either are contradictory, though some would have us believe it is a binary either-or approach, of gold or apocalypse. I remain open to a rigorously cautious and openly curious approach to the potential of any commercial activity in our moana, be it above or below the sea. But this must be based on solid and robust independent research first and the time needed to gather this independent research. Simply put - if we don’t know enough about its potential dangers, we don’t know enough about the balance of its potential wealth for our country.  

Nonetheless, I maintain relationships with good friends and colleagues who continue to ask me these questions – good critical questions for and against the future of our country and the harvesting of its resources, on land and in the moana.

Consultation like uriuri’anga manako is a back and forth of ideas and a tussle between differing points of view that the generic term Talanoa does not embrace. But without that back and forth, we do not engage, we merely present a position. Without the opposing view we have simply shared our position but not considered the point of view across the table. 

Good advice is not taking advice in isolation, or speaking to those we agree with. Good advice is shaped by opposing views, what have we not considered, what is our blindspot and what do we not yet understand.  We cannot be led to believe that we are the single voice of any issue as there are many voices at the table of good decision-making.

 What I have learnt working in governments, is that decisions when made in isolation are decisions we all live to regret. Because decisions made by officials, at official levels, often on global stages, but not with the public, are decisions made in a vacuum — and in that vacuum, democracy cannot breathe. 

Too often globally we see communities of people, spectators to the work of government, as it speaks for us without asking us, or even informing us. This is not just about science. It is about true engagement. This is not just about protecting our oceans. It is about protecting the will of the people. A rā‘ui — in its true indigenous form — is not just a media release. It is a consensus, born of uriuri’anga and a shared responsibility. When a rā‘ui is declared without meaningful consultation with the very people who hold the knowledge of rā‘ui, does it become a symbol without substance?

A question posed to me also this week from a community leader was — is this a way to deflect criticism ofseabed activityby protecting whales, while ignoring the deep and fragile ecosystems beneath them? And when indigenous terms like rā‘ui are used as tools of diplomacy, but stripped of their relational power — do they still hold their mana? 

Because mana without a mandate is not mana at all and mana comes from our people alone – given and not taken.

Democracy like opposition and demonstration when effective, moves beyond social media posts and performative gestures and clickbait - It is instead principled. No one is against ocean protection, nor the protection of our whales. But we should be concerned at any erosion of public sentiment, that sits beneath the surface of global government agendas, international diplomacy and a countries commitments.  We must push against the performance of indigenous values without the practice of indigenous processes, especially meaningful engagement. So, here’s a proposal to consider: Let’s place a rā‘ui on governments globally, working independently from their people and without meaningful, robust consultation that includes those that oppose them. Now that is a rā‘ui we could all support, and lead to decisions that are with us, by us, and for us and not despite us.