Dear Editor, Am I the only one who thinks the bully-boy tactics from the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs, scaring our people, and destabilising our Government is a little heavy-handed? It’s especially disappointing to see our usually anonymous Leader of the Opposition kowtowing in such a weak way to this approach from NZ Foreign Affairs too.

To Mr. Scott, the Joint Centenary Declaration, (JCD) while not a legally enforceable instrument, is nevertheless an important document in that it characterises and ‘updates’ the way in which both parties interpret those Constitutional elements that bind the two countries together. Mr. Scott would no doubt know that a unique feature of the Westminster legal model is the nature and role of ‘conventions’ within the constitution. These are rules of the constitution which in contrast with written rules of Constitutional documents are not enforced by any Courts of Law. They do however allow for the governance of countries to continue and progress, and not be constrained or hampered by a legal framework which may take some years to ‘catch up’. For example, in the old Commonwealth, changes to legal rules came well after the establishment of the de-facto independence achieved under conventions of the Constitution.

In the case of NZ, it wasn’t until 1947 that the Statute of Westminster, granting New Zealand full legal autonomy from the UK, was adopted to bring law into line with convention - even though NZ had been recognised as a fully independent sovereign state and a founding member of the United Nations. In this same way, it is through the use of conventions that the independent capacities of Cook Islands in foreign affairs and treaty-making as well as the exclusive role of CI Ministers were established. In other words, the JCD is important in that it acknowledges that the relationship between the two countries is NOT static, but rather it is an evolving one which gives room for the Cook Islands to continue to develop and expand its international profile and relationships with other countries.

The JCD is also important for how it describes the ‘shared values’ of NZ citizenship and in recognising that the two countries have a duty to consult with each other, particularly in respect of those ‘shared values’ and in respecting the interests of either country. The issue that seems to be of most concern to New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) appears to be the recent trip to China and the resulting development agreement that was signed by both countries. For reference, the requirement to consult is covered in the JCD under Clause 4 dealing with Foreign Affairs in Section 3 as follows:

3. Without impairing the right of either Signatory to formulate and implement its own foreign policies, the Signatories undertake to:

     a. consult regularly on foreign affairs matters with a view to formulating common policies on important foreign affairs issues;
     b. cooperate in the pursuit of common foreign relations objectives; and
     c. advise each other when a proposed foreign policy initiative may affect the rights, obligations and interests of the other Signatory.

Now, it is a matter of public record that our Prime Minister did in fact consult with his relevant counterpart in New Zealand and apparently gave personal assurances that there were no elements in the proposed agreement that cut across the security interests of New Zealand. Whether that was considered to be ‘enough’ consultation by MFAT is another matter, but I think it is completely unreasonable to expect that the Cook Islands be required to have every single development arrangement with its bilateral partners vetted by NZ prior to approval either.

Meanwhile, I read with some sense of irony in NZ media that while putting their development assistance to the Cook Islands on ‘pause’ because of some perceived problem with our agreement with China, their Prime Minister visited China this week, where he facilitated $871 million of commercial agreements between NZ businesses and their Chinese partners. These agreements included air travel agreements and immigration facilitation for Chinese nationals; education and research agreements; and a raft of other commercial private sector arrangements between NZ and China. In response, our Prime Minister was quoted as saying: “I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands. Despite, of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China.”

So it is interesting that MFAT cited ‘the duty to consult’ provision under the JCD in reference to the Cook Islands draft development agreement with China at the time, but do not appear to be following the terms of that themselves, nor it seems, have they ever. A casual search online shows agreements between NZ and China that include among other things: an FTA (Free Trade Agreement) signed in 2008 and upgraded in 2022, a 2014 China-NZ Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, and a 2019 Defense MOU. In fact, the search turned up quite an extensive list of agreements across a wide range of sectors. With respect to defense, NZ is involved in a myriad of arrangements which very likely have implications for the Cook Islands to a lesser or greater extent. These include the now infamous ‘5-Eyes’ intelligence sharing alliance, a Five Powers Defense Arrangement, an ITPP with NATO, and more recently, moves towards a potential partnership with AUKUS. It is an open question as to how much ‘consulting’ NZ has done with its so-called Realm Partners at any stage along the way. So is it possible they are applying a double standard here? A case of ‘do as we say, but not as we do’ perhaps? 

At the end of the day, the responsibility to ‘repair any damage’ to the relationship between the Governments of New Zealand and the Cook Islands rests with both parties, not just one. The duty to consult under the terms of the JCD cuts both ways, and this ought to be properly recognised by MFAT and their Foreign Minister as well.

The days of New Zealand administering the Cook Islands as a colony are over, and such condescending, paternalistic, and prejudiced attitudes should likewise be consigned to the dustbin of history. Efforts to reach a common understanding must be based upon reciprocity, with mutual respect as equal partners – and not a regression to some bygone colonial era. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the Leaders can sit down and sort this out in a more civilised and respectful way.

Kia manuia,

Joe TP

(Name and address supplied)