A public protest march is planned in Rarotonga as the Cook Islands makes further moves that locals fear is fracturing their country’s relationship with New Zealand.
Cook Islands United political party leader Teariki Heather told 1News the march will be held on parliament’s first sitting of the year in Rarotonga on February 17.
“We want to show our face — how much we love our relationship and stop the nonsense the government is doing,” he said.
The ructions come after 1News revealed the Cook Islands was pushing for its own passport despite New Zealand saying it would be constitutionally impossible as a realm country. Last night, 1News revealed Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown was about to head to China on the country’s first state visit, where he was expected to sign a comprehensive strategic partnership with China.
Protest rising in Rarotonga as locals claims to have been left in the dark about the breakdown in relations with NZ. (Source: 1News)
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters said New Zealand has no clarity over the deal and “we’ve got past arrangements, constitutional arrangements, which require consultation with us and dare I say China knows that”. Under a longstanding agreement, the two nations must cooperate and consult on any issues of defence and security, and advise each other of any risks to either state.
Brown told 1News that the Chinese agreement would be made public once it’s signed and disclosed that deep sea mining would be part of the pact.
The mining agreement worried environmental groups such as Te Ipukarea Society. Director Alanna Smith believed China would be more concerned about making financial gains as quick as possible — with environment considerations coming second.
“I know China are looking to be one of the first in the world to do commercial deep-sea mining… it would be scary if that relationship did happen because… I don’t feel confident in China having put the environment first in industries like this,” she said.
Environmentalist Louisa Castledine also expressed concern about a lack of transparency about what was being agreed.
“My concern is that again, we the people of the Cook Islands have been left in the dark — we have not been consulted. Very little communication has been made around this relationship with China,” she said.
Cultural leader and carver Mike Tavioni, too, was enraged at the lack of transparency, particularly over the passport issue. Like many in the Cook Islands, he was worried about losing New Zealand status.
“I do not agree with it. I think it’s one of the most unthought of, stupid movements that any government can make,” he said.
Brown said a Cook Islands passport was about cultural identity but Tavioni disagreed, saying the Cook Islands had a long cultural history with New Zealand.
“If the creation of a Kuki passport is genuine to express our identity and to showcase our culture, how come that the national total budget of the country last year is about one-third for tourism development and about 1% for culture?”
Peters said New Zealand has a commitment to the Cook Islands people and its government needed to consult its people on the issue — otherwise “our whole relationship is called into question, including the benefits and rights that Cook Island people have when it comes to New Zealand”.
New Zealand has ruled out a dual passport arrangement. 1News understands that if the Cook Islands went ahead with its own, anyone who applied for a Cook Islands passport would be treated as having renounced their New Zealand one.
Brown, meanwhile, was adamant the Cook Islands government could go ahead with its own passport and still stay within the free association with New Zealand arrangement. He said the Cook Islands needed more development partners such as China and the islands already more than pulled its weight with New Zealand.
“That’s over a billion dollars a year that Cook Islands – through its diaspora, through its local companies – contributes to the New Zealand economy,” he said.
“That — with New Zealand’s grant funding that comes through to us in the last three years of $60 million — the question is asked actually, who is paying who in this relationship?”
