You are here: Home Publications Previous publications 2000 Pacific peoples' constitution report The history of New Zealand's Pacific Connection

The history of New Zealand's Pacific Connection

2.1 Introduction: understanding the history

This chapter traces the history of the process by which the homelands came to be, in four cases, part of New Zealand's territorial jurisdiction. A second process by which the homelands under New Zealand jurisdiction came to be seen as political and economic liabilities, and were encouraged to accede to independence is also relevant to this report.

Those histories are not always appreciated, and there is sometimes a tendency to think that the island populations have somehow insinuated themselves into New Zealand without much regard either to invitations or to the duties of guests.

In fact, New Zealand enthusiastically pursued an expansionist policy within the South Pacific a century ago. It energetically sought the encompassing of the territories and populations by New Zealand governance. It actively recruited immigrant island labour as required by the New Zealand economy, and repeatedly assured both the Pacific people and the world of its good intentions and of the benefits which would accrue to the populations concerned from adherence to the New Zealand State.

No attempt will be made to catalogue all the legislative steps in the pathway to independence and self-government of New Zealand's former Pacific territories. Nicola van der Beek's Annotated Bibliography,[18] compiled as part of the present project, contains much useful material in this regard. That volume should be viewed as a companion resource to this report, which aims at capturing the broad sweep of developments rather than duplicating the coverage of the Bibliography.

2.2 Early expansionist ambitions

Perhaps the earliest connection is to be found in the aspirations of Governor George Grey, who, in his first term of office (1845-1853):

'wrought unceasingly in the endeavour to establish an island federation under the British flag. He induced the chiefs of Tonga, Fiji, New Caledonia, Tahiti and the Loyalty Islands to consent to the establishment of British sovereignty in their territories, and the institution of customs duties identical with those of New Zealand, the proceeds from which would defray the expenses of a simple form of Government. But his enthusiasm found no echo in the Colonial Office...'[19]

By the turn of the century, Premier Richard Seddon found sufficient political momentum to turn New Zealand aspirations for a wider Pacific influence into reality. An interesting light is thrown upon Seddon's motives and vision by the following excerpts from his speeches in the New Zealand Parliament in support of motions for Pacific Islands annexation by New Zealand in 1900:[20]

'In respect to the resolutions, it will be said, if they are carried that this is the commencement of New Zealand's foreign policy...I contend that the extension of our boundaries, the bringing in of people and communities with us whose interests are identical, is in truth the interests of our colony, and will profit our colony for all time' (387).

After criticising the London authorities for failing to take opportunities for extending British influence in the South Pacific, and referring to the possibility of New Zealand joining the then incipient Australian Commonwealth at some time in the future, Seddon said:

'They will think more of us as a nation in years to come, with islands of our own, than as we exist now were we to go to them and ask to be federated' (391).

Seddon's enthusiasm and impatience at the hesitation of some Members of Parliament appears from another intervention in the debate:

'There is the cruiser Mildura in our harbour buoyant and ready. Her engines are throbbing. She is tearing at the hawser. She wants to get away as the messenger of peace and expansion. What is her mission? Her mission is to help you, to help this colony, and to help the Empire; and then honourable members are so dense as to say they do not understand the necessity' (423).

Finally, the Premier delivered a classic statement of orthodox nineteenth century imperialism:

'We are commencing a new century, and with its dawn let us commence a new life - one of expansion and on the forward path of our ultimate destiny...Our dear old flag will for ever float over the islands insuring justice and freedom to all' (425).

Soon after, in May 1900, Seddon and a party of family, friends, and officials embarked on the Government despatch-boat S.S. Tutanekai for a voyage to Tonga, Fiji, Niue, and the Cook Islands. The Premier's overtures to leaders during the voyage indicate the clear purpose of soliciting agreement to New Zealand annexation.[21] The voyage was successful in respect of the Cook Islands and Niue - within a few months a Petition from the principal Ariki in Rarotonga was forthcoming:

'We, the Arikis of Rarotonga...on the 6th day of September, 1900, do hereby petition His Excellency the Governor of New Zealand to annex the islands of Rarotonga ...to the British Empire. And whereas we are of the same race as the Maoris of New Zealand, and all our trade is with those islands, we are willing to become part and portion of that colony...'[22]

On 13 May 1901, the British Government issued an Imperial Order in Council under the Colonial Boundaries Act 1895 (UK). This extended the boundaries of the Colony of New Zealand to include the Cook Islands, as the Lower Group were then loosely termed, and other islands (the Northern Group and Niue) within certain defined limits. Proclamations issued in Auckland on 10 and 13 June 1901[23] formally applied the Imperial Order in Council on 11 June 1901, from which date until the coming into force of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 (NZ), on 5 August 1965, the Cook Islands was part of New Zealand. Niue, similarly became part of New Zealand until the coming into force of the Niue Constitution Act 1974 (NZ) on 19 October 1974.

2.3 Samoa is added

On 15 August 1914, eleven days after the declaration of war against the German Empire, the New Zealand Government despatched a military force to land in and seize from the German authorities the islands which form the modern independent state of Western Samoa. The landing took place on 29 August 1914, and the New Zealand Solicitor General, later Sir John Salmond, described the constitutional status of the territory at that point as follows:

'...it is enemy territory in the temporary occupation of His Majesty's Forces and is under the despotic government of the Officer Commanding those Forces...' [24]

Following the war, it was clear that there would be no return to German control. Both the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers, Hughes and Massey, were determined that the German territories should accrue to their respective states as visible compensation for the sacrifices endured in the war. Not even President Wilson's idealistic calls at the peace conference in Versailles for an end to colonialism and respect for a newly-coined term self-determination, could shake the determination of the Australasian leaders on this matter. The British Cabinet Secretary, Hankey, reported the impasse:

'Hughes and Massey, who insist on annexation of the German islands in the South Pacific are our principal difficulty, but President Wilson, in his insistence on the affiliation of those Colonies...to the League of Nations, is even more obstinate...'[25]

The compromise was what became know as the 'C Mandate'. It relaxed the Wilsonian insistence on self-determination by creating a special category of Mandate recognised in Article 22(6) of the Covenant of the League of Nations as follows:

'There are territories, such as...certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilization....can best be administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory...'

It was in accordance with this formula that a League of Nations Mandate was conferred on New Zealand, paving the way for the empowering of the New Zealand Parliament 'to make laws for the peace order and good government of the Territory of Western Samoa'.[26]  The result was the Samoa Act 1921, which provided the constitutional framework for the legal system of Western Samoa until independence in 1962.[27]

The purpose of this summary is not to attempt any evaluation of the New Zealand administration of Samoa under the League of Nations Mandate. However, the considered judgement of a recent New Zealand Attorney-General and Minister of Justice must represent at least a starting point. In 1982, in the context of the citizenship issue that will be described below, the Hon. J.K. McLay stated publicly that:

'It would be true to say that, in its early years, New Zealand's administration of Western Samoa was not particularly auspicious. There was considerable unrest in Samoa, the most publicised incident being the Mau uprising in 1929 when New Zealand police fired on a demonstration in the streets of Apia killing, among others, the leader Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III (the uncle of the present Prime Minister Tupuola Efi).

'However, it would be equally fair to say that in later years both National and Labour governments made conscious efforts to improve the situation and that, unlike many former colonial and trustee territories in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, Western Samoa moved to a peaceful and democratic independence in 1962. That is something that reflects favourably on both New Zealand and Samoa'.[28]

Tokelau. The final accretion to the present Realm of New Zealand were the three Pacific atolls of Atafu, Nukunono, and Fakaofo. These were made a British protectorate in 1889 and became part of the then Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony in 1916. They were governed by the Administrator of Western Samoa by British delegation from 1926, and from 1 January 1949 were, by effect of the Tokelau Act 1948 (NZ), declared to form part of New Zealand. That constitutional status remains to the present, although as will be seen in the next chapter, development towards a self-determined autonomy is at an advanced stage.[29]

2.4 New Zealand's administration of the Island Territories, and of Pacifc people in New Zealand

Sir Apirana Ngata, and his close friend Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck), were perhaps the first New Zealand statesmen to advocate a wider pan-Polynesian perspective in New Zealand's administration of its dependent territories in the South Pacific. Buck wrote to Ngata in 1934:

'I would like to see a wider Polynesian spirit and consciousness developed among the various branches...The wider Polynesian Department which you envisaged would certainly lead in that direction but the pakeha politicians do not see as we see. It is unfortunate that we made such a bad break with Samoa'.[30]

In general, administration - of the island territories and for Pacific peoples living in New Zealand - has followed a zigzag course as to structure, and philosophical direction. This does not mean that there was absence of goodwill, or that there were not significant achievements both in the territories and for Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Study of the voluminous reporting on the administrations in Samoa, the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau to be found in the annual volumes of the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives leaves the reader impressed with the dedication of officials serving in the territories. However, the judgement of an experienced modern observer seems fair:

'The pre-war experience had shown that administration of all four territories was an altogether tougher and less glamorous matter than the late nineteenth century politicians would have imagined. Indeed policy making was frequently characterised by muddle or even neglect'.[31]

The External Affairs Act 1919 set up a Department charged with the oversight of New Zealand's responsibilities in the South Pacific - Western Samoa and the Cook Islands and Niue. The Minister, Sir James Allen, explained:

' ... if the mandate is to be taken by New Zealand, some responsible Minister must be appointed here to take charge of and look after the affairs of Samoa, and with Samoa the affairs of the Cook Islands, and to deal with other external questions'.[32]

The External Affairs Act amended the Cook Islands Act 1915 under which the administration of the Cook Islands had been overseen. The functions, powers and duties previously exercised by the Minister for the Cook Islands was now carried out by the Minister of External Affairs.[33]  The Cook Islands function was separated from the Minister of External Affairs in 1920 under the External Affairs Amendment Act, and the Minister for the Cook Islands was restored.[34]   Under the Cook Islands Amendment Act 1932, the Ministry also took on the responsibility for the administration of Niue, previously exercised by the Cook Islands Minister.

By 1943 the range and complexity of New Zealand's international relations had made necessary the creation of a fully-fledged Department of State to deal with foreign affairs in the full sense of relations with the other states of the international community.[35]  The then-Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, explained:

'At the present time there is a Department of External Affairs in New Zealand, but it is confined in its functions to the administration of Western Samoa. The title was relevant of the time, but today the term external affairs connotes something much wider in the public mind'.[36]

Thus the function of the administration of the Pacific islands (Western Samoa only at this point) was separated out from the Department of External Affairs. In the resulting gap, the Government created the Ministry of Island Territories under the Island Territories Act 1943, bringing the administration of Samoa, the Cook Islands and Niue together once again.

In 1968 the Island Territories Act 1943 was abolished and the Department of Island Territories was amalgamated with the Department of Maori Affairs. The change was effected on the advice of the State Services Commission, and probably depended in part on the expertise in both Maori and Island matters of the Permanent Head of the new Department, Mr Jock McEwen.[37] The new Department of Maori and Island Affairs functioned as a link between the Minister of Island Affairs and the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue, and the Tokelau Islands administration. It also retained responsibility 'for the welfare, housing, and other needs of islanders living in New Zealand'.[38]

By 1974 it was evident that this structure sat uncomfortably with the reality of modern relations:

'The New Zealand Prime Minister (Norman Kirk) was anxious to emphasise that the island states of the Cook Islands and Niue were truly independent. In his eyes, it was anomalous that their dealings with his government should be through the Department of Maori Affairs rather than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a result, legislation was passed transferring the overseas functions of the Islands Division to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and making the Secretary of Foreign Affairs Administrator of the Tokelaus from 1 April 1975. The Department, however, retained responsibility for the welfare, housing and other needs of Pacific Islanders living in New Zealand'.[39]

Accordingly, and by the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, the Department of Maori Affairs was reconstituted without its Island Affairs arm.

In 1989, the Ministry of Maori Affairs was restructured, and consequentially relieved of responsibility for the few programmes for Pacific Island people which it still administered. In the second reading debate on what was to become the Maori Affairs Restructuring Act 1989, Minister Koro Wetere explained:

'At present, my Department administers several programmes and services for Pacific Islands people. I state clearly that the Government is committed to ongoing support of Pacific Islands people resident in New Zealand. The existing programmes and services provided by my Department to Pacific Islands people will continue to be funded until the future dictates that they be replaced by more relevant measures. However, it would be inappropriate for those programmes and services to be delivered by iwi authorities. At present I am setting up four offices for Pacific Islands people throughout New Zealand. Discussions have already commenced with Pacific Islands representatives to determine to whom responsibility for those programmes will be transferred'.[40]

2.5 Decolonisation after World War II

Lindsay Watt, a senior New Zealand diplomat with extensive experience in Pacific Affairs, has written that:

'From New Zealand's experience of decolonisation over the past 50 years comes much of that special character which makes New Zealand truly a country of, and not simply in, the South Pacific'.[41]

He has drawn attention to the significance of Prime Minister Peter Fraser's role in the formation of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, and his chairmanship of the Trusteeship Committee in which those parts of the Charter establishing the principle of self-determination for trust territories and non-self-governing territories were developed. Watt discusses this and other factors in reaching the conclusion that:

'New Zealand - both aided and abetted by the United Nations - found itself in the vanguard as a decoloniser in the South Pacific through the 1960's and into the next decade'.

Certainly, New Zealand was prepared to experiment and innovate. A specific example is the development of an associated state model for the Cook Islands, and later Niue, which proved acceptable to the United Nations, and the key to which was the vesting of all law-making powers in the legislature of the associated state. An earlier model designed by the United Kingdom for its Caribbean territories, and which attempted to retain at Westminster law-making powers for foreign affairs and defence matters, had been rejected by the United Nations as falling short of compliance with its intentions.

In December 1960 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), better known as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It declared in part that:

(3) Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence...

(5) Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the people of those territories without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

It was adopted by 89 votes in favour (NZ), with none against, but nine abstentions.

The next day, the General Assembly adopted a further declaration. Resolution 1541 (XV) contained an annex setting out 'Principles which should guide Members in Determining whether or not an obligation Exists to Transmit the Information called for in Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations'. Principle VI set out three options:

'A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:

(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent state

(b) Free Association with an independent state

(c) Integration with an independent state.

Principle VII stated that:

(a) Free Association should be the result of free and voluntary choice by the people of the territory...It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent state the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes

(b) The associated territory should have the right to determine its internal constitution without outside interference...

In 1961 the General Assembly set up a Special Committee of 17 members to study and report progress on implementation of Resolution 1514. In 1962 it was enlarged to 24 members and became known as the 'Committee of 24'.[42]

The New Zealand response to these pressures is fairly summarised by Lindsay Watt:

'Both New Zealand's mixed but less than satisfactory pre-war record, and the changed international environment, demanded more coherent and consistent policies in the post-war period...New Zealand in any event wanted to be seen to be upholding its international obligations, and certainly had no wish to be arraigned before world opinion indefinitely as a colonial power'.[43]

New Zealand's decolonisation in the Pacific was certainly propelled by a mixture of United Nations pressure and democratic idealism - the proportions of each will continue to be a matter of debate.

2.6 Independence and self-government

It is important that the circumstances of New Zealand's acquisition and later relinquishment of control over its former colonial territories in the South Pacific be understood, at least in broad terms, by New Zealand citizens and policy-makers. These circumstances are not forgotten in the Islands concerned, and future good relations and respect for New Zealand influence depend on the historical background being taken into account. It is important to traverse the statements made by New Zealand leaders both at the time of accession of the territories to independence and self-government.

Western Samoa. The twin concepts of independence and special relationship were articulated by Prime Minister Nash at the United Nations as early as 1960 in the lead-up to Samoan independence:

'I wish, at this point, to make it unmistakably clear that the assistance which New Zealand is ready to give, both internally and in international affairs, to Western Samoa will be provided with the fullest regard for Western Samoa's independent status. After independence has been achieved - and I refer to its complete independence, before any agreement is made - all subsequent relations between New Zealand and Western Samoa will be conducted as between equal sovereign states.

'The bonds which link Western Samoa and New Zealand - bonds of friendship, understanding and affinity between our Maori citizens and other Polynesian peoples - are stronger and more abiding than any formal agreements can ever be. These bonds will remain after independence; but they will be enriched and strengthened by free association, established in mutual trust and confirmed by mutual respect and affection'.[44]

When the Bill altering New Zealand law to recognise Samoan independence came before the New Zealand Parliament, Prime Minister Holyoake told Members that:

' ...I gave an assurance to Prime Minister Mata'afa that New Zealand would be willing, when the Samoans asked, to enter into a formal agreement with the Samoan government after independence...Such an agreement would enable New Zealand to continue to give to the Samoan Government and people practical help, and also help in carrying out their international obligations and affairs. I am sure that history will prove, and that is the best proof, that whatever Government is in power here, whatever party is on the Treasury benches in New Zealand, that New Zealand will always continue to regard Western Samoa with sympathy and special consideration.... I look forward to continued co-operation with the Samoan people and Government. I look forward to the building up of a new and equal partnership between New Zealand and Samoa as the years go by. Small as we are, we will play our part as being very much the major partner in that partnership.

'I can only repeat that we shall do all we can, and whatever seems proper in the circumstances from time to time, to help the new state and people of Western Samoa, and to co-operate with the Samoan Government not only for the welfare of the Samoan people, but in a mutual endeavour to provide a fuller life for the people of that and other island communities in the South Pacific'.[45]

Justin Fepulea'i's study of New Zealand policy in respect of Western Samoa's independence concludes that the accession to full independence by Western Samoa (following a United Nations supervised plebiscite in May 1961) required departure from 'the prevailing belief amongst the colonial and administering powers... that it was impractical and, indeed, illogical for small, isolated, and resourceless island territories to attain sovereign independent statehood'.[46]

Cook Islands. Minister Hanan spoke at the United Nations of the associated statehood relationship chosen by the Cook Islands in 1964:

'New Zealand has taken some pride in pioneering the application of United Nations principles to the situation of small and scattered islands. It has co-operated closely with the Committee of Twenty-Four in examining the practical means by which a genuine self-determination can be brought about. ... None of us can fail to recognise that the special problems of many Territories now remaining in dependency go beyond size and isolation to touch the very fundamentals of nationhood.

'When a multiplicity of languages and peoples have been grouped by history within the boundaries of one territory, when age-old isolation and suspicions have not yet been fused into a sense of community - in these circumstances it is not simply a question of offering the means of self-determination. A common national purpose and a national consensus have first to be created. As we recognize the need for urgency in implementing the declaration, we also must recognize the creation first of a sense of community. To do otherwise is not merely to raise more problems than are solved: it is a betrayal of our commitment under the declaration to offer real self-determination to all dependent peoples'.[47]

In the New Zealand Parliament, Mr Riddiford, Chairman of the Select Committee responsible for the Bill, played a central role in the formulation of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 (NZ), told Members that:

'It was important to make clear that New Zealand will continue to recognise her moral responsibilities to the Cook Islands, and that they need feel no fear that they are being abandoned...I trust the Cook Islands Constitution Bill will bring them even closer to us and will herald a new era in which they will feel they are not merely New Zealand citizens by force of circumstance, but New Zealanders by their own choice'.[48]

Then Prime Minister, Keith Holyoake, told Members during the second reading of the Cook Islands Constitution Amendment Bill in 1965:

'They have no reason for worry... the elected representatives of the Cook Islands can administer their country in complete confidence of continuing encouragement and support from the Parliament and the people of New Zealand'.[49]

Niue. Niue is a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. The people of Niue freely chose that status in preference to that of full independence or of political integration with New Zealand. The General Assembly of the United Nations recognised Niue's act of self-determination in resolution 3285 (XXIX) on 13 December 1974. In September of that year, New Zealand's Associate-Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Joe Walding, informed the General Assembly that:

'On 19 October New Zealand and Niue will end their relationship of administering Power and non-Self-Governing Territory; we will enter a new period of partnership on a basis of equality. As a self-governing state, Niue will take its place as a full member of the South Pacific Forum along with other independent and self-governing states in the Pacific, including Papua-New Guinea. Niue's new Constitution contains my Government's assurance that New Zealand's economic assistance to Niue will continue as before'.[50]

Tokelau. The associated state model pioneered by New Zealand for the decolonisation of the Cook Islands in 1964, and Niue in 1974, was a bold initiative. But it is fair to say that it owed more to the skill of wise and sympathetic New Zealand constitutional advisers than to the traditions and informed cultural preferences of the people of those territories. The imperative of that period was deliberate speed, leaving it to subsequent generations to redesign the model as preference and circumstance required.

Furthermore, there were tensions between the goal of complete executive and legislative autonomy for the island states and the need for continuing New Zealand economic and other support. This caused some commentators to wonder whether the Cook Islands/Niue model ought automatically to be applied to the last remaining New Zealand Pacific territory as it moved to self-determination.[51]

Professor Tony Angelo has written recently of the different approach to the future of Tokelau: one in which the Tokelauan voice is more prominent. In particular, the composition, role and powers of the central agency - the General Fono - is to be determined by Tokelauan processes. The Tokelau Amendment Act 1996 designated the General Fono as the primary domestic legislator for Tokelau and Professor Angelo states that:

'It is now... almost unthinkable that the New Zealand Government would use its legal rights to override a General Fono decision on a Tokelau domestic matter'.[52]


Footnotes

18. Nicola van der Beek, Annotated Bibliography of Legal Instruments and other Documents relevant to the Relationship between New Zealand and Six Pacific Nations, Ministry of Justice, Wellington, 1998. This helpful resource will be referred to as 'Annotated Bibliography '. Like this report, the Bibliography is also available electronically at www.justice.govt.nz and www.minpac.govt.nz.

19. Hight and Bamford, The Constitutional History and Law of New Zealand, Whitcombe and Tombs, 1914, p.205.

20. All the quotations from Premier Seddon are found at NZPD, Vol.114 (1900) at the pages indicated.

21. See The Right Hon. R.J. Seddon's Visit to Tonga, Fiji, Savage Island, and the Cook Islands - May 1900, Government Printer, Wellington, 1900. Edward Tregear kept the account of the voyage: it contains many photographs of the Premier with leading figures in the Islands visited. The initial publication of the account was withdrawn on the demand of Premier Seddon who complained that it exhibited photographs of a private nature - a second publication was produced without the offending items. The intention of annexing the Cook Islands to New Zealand is evident in the actions of other leading figures. For example, W.E. Gudgeon, who had been appointed 'British Resident ' in Rarotonga under earlier Protectorate arrangements, worked single-mindedly to that end as is clear from his biographer's account, see Elsdon Craig, Destiny Well Sown, Monograph No.12, January 1985, Whakatane & District Historical Society. See particularly Chapter XV.

22. See AJHR 1900, Vol. 1, A-3J.The Petition was explicitly subject to some provisos concerning land rights and other matters.

23. The Proclamation of 13 June appears in New Zealand Gazette, Vol.1 (1901), p.1307.

24. Solicitor-General Salmond to Attorney-General Bell, 23 November 1917, Crown Law Office, Wellington, Opinions to Attorney-General 1913-1918, quoted in Alex Frame, Salmond: Southern Jurist, Victoria University Press, Wellington, 1995, at page 189.

25. Quote in Salmond: Southern Jurist, supra, at page 190.

26. On 11 March 1920 the Western Samoa Order in Council was made 'At the Court at Buckingham Palace ' pursuant to the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890 (UK). See, New Zealand Gazette (1920) Vol.II at page 1819. The convoluted arguments about the manner in which the power ought properly to be conferred are discussed in Salmond: Southern Jurist, supra, at pages 191-195.

27. The basis of the Act in the earlier Cook Islands legislation, and some detail as to the philosophy and drafting of the Act is provided in Salmond: Southern Jurist, supra, pages 196-198.

28. Address by the Hon. J.K. McLay to a meeting of the Island Bay Electorate Branch of the National Party in Wellington on 27 September 1982, set out in New Zealand Citizenship and Western Samoans, Information Bulletin No.4, March 1983, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wellington, at page 40. The reference to the then Samoan Prime Minister is to the present leader of the opposition in Samoa, Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi. The culpability of the New Zealand authorities in relation to the Mau protests, and the killing of Tamasese when police opened fire on a procession in Apia on 28 December 1929, is judged more severely by some commentators, for example Michael J. Field, Mau: Samoa's Struggle for Freedom, Polynesian Press, revised, 1991.

29. For a recent and helpful account of the developments from an experienced adviser on Tokelau matters, see Professor Tony Angelo, 'Establishing a Nation - Kikilaga Nenefu', Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 30 (1999), p.75-89.

30. Buck to Ngata, 15 April 1935, Na To Hoa Aroha, Vol.(ii) p. 149. The reference to Samoa is of course to the attempted suppression of the Mau movement and the consequent alienation of Samoan popular opinion from the New Zealand administration.

31. Lindsay Watt, Decolonisation Chapter VII in M.Templeton (ed.), New Zealand as an International Citizen: Fifty Years of United Nations Membership, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellington, 1995, page 111.

32. Hon. Sir J. Allen, NZPD Vol.185 (1919) p.539.

33. External Affairs Act 1919 s 6(1).

34. External Affairs Amendment Act 1920 s 2 (1).

35. A.D McIntosh Administration of an Independent New Zealand Foreign Policy in T.C Larkin (ed.), New Zealand 's External Relations, Pegasus Press, Christchurch, 1967. p.35.

36. Prime Minister Fraser, NZPD Vol.262 (1943) p.569.

37. The change was effected by the Maori and Island Affairs Department Act 1968, No.14. For some explanation see NZPD Vol.355 (1968) p.510-521.

38. Reports of the Maori and Island Affairs Department for years ended 31 March 1974 and 1975, App. J.H.R. 1974 E.13., and 1975 E.13.

39. Maori Affairs, at p. 108-109.

40. Minister Koro Wetere, NZPD Vol.501 (1989) p.12445.

41. Lindsay Watt, Decolonisation in New Zealand as an International Citizen: Fifty Years of United Nations Membership, page 110.

42. It is fair to say that the 'Committee of 24' had a somewhat ideological approach to decolonisation and in that respect was not always free of cold war politics. One commentator noted that 'Its repeated insistence that Pitcairn Island (population about 90) be granted sovereign independence gives one cause to wonder about the Committee's awareness of the problems of very small island territories'.

43. Lindsay Watt, Decolonisation, note 31 above, p. 112-113.

44. Prime Minister Nash, from the Official Records of the United Nations General Assembly Fifteenth Session,( Volume I, 20 September - 17 October 1960) 886th meeting, 4 October 1960, p.401, paras 9.1 and 9.2.

45. Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, 1 November 1961, NZPD Vol. 329 (1961) p.3272-3273.

46. Justin Fepulea'i, From Self-Government to Independence: The Development of New Zealand's Policy Towards Western Samoa During the United Nations Trusteeship Period, 1946-62, Thesis, University of Auckland, 1994. Quoted in Lindsay Watt, Decolonisation, supra note 31, at page 116.

47. From Official Records of the General Assembly Nineteenth sessions; Plenary meetings (Volume II, 15 Dec. 1964 - 1 Sept 1965) speech by Mr Hanan, Wednesday 16 December 1964, at paras.107 and 108.

48. Hon. D. Riddiford, 21 October 1964, NZPD Vol. 340 (1964) p.2838.

49. Prime Minister Holyoake, 4 June 1965, NZPD Vol.342 (1965) p.180.

50. Official Record of the General Assembly, Twenty Ninth Session, Plenary Meetings, Vol.1, p.76 [2239th Meeting, 23 September 1974].

51. See, for example, Alison Quentin-Baxter, who with wide experience of modern constitutions in the Pacific, discusses a concept of sustained autonomy as an alternative political status for small islands, in an article in the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Vol. 24 (1994) at page 1.

52. Angelo, 'Establishing Nation...' note 29 above, at page 85.