Dear Editor, Here’s my observation of this focus on the Cook Islands Passport, designed I might add, to draw attention away from seabed mining.

Introducing a Cook Islands passport and citizenship is a significant shift, especially given the longstanding benefits Cook Islanders have enjoyed under New Zealand’s free association. This includes the highly valued New Zealand passport, which allows for easier global travel and work opportunities.

Look, the thing is, by stating that independence would be a prerequisite for such changes, New Zealand seems to be drawing a clear line. This could place the Cook Islands government in a tough spot, as independence might bring challenges like loss of access to New Zealand’s financial and diplomatic support, in addition to the public’s resistance.

NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ call for a referendum underscores the democratic process, ensuring Cook Islanders themselves decide their future. Given the strong opposition to giving up the New Zealand passport, such a referendum would likely reflect the overwhelming “no” sentiment already seen.

This debate appears to be more than just about passports; it’s about identity, sovereignty, and the practical realities of standing on one’s own. If the government continues to push for these changes, it could face significant backlash domestically, especially with the next general elections in 2026.

A referendum would not only ensure that the people’s voices are heard but also formalise the collective sentiment on such a critical issue. It’s one thing to gauge opinions informally, like through social media or public discussion, but a referendum provides an official, measurable outcome that holds weight in decision-making.

Given the widespread resistance to basically dumbing down the benefits of a New Zealand passport to sit alongside a Cook Islands passport, a referendum will reaffirm the public’s attachment to the current arrangement. It would also send a clear message to the government about the level of enthusiasm – or lack thereof – for such a fundamental change.

PM Brown uses the argument that several other countries recognise dual citizenship as his defence of the change. This is misleading, the Cook Islands’ unique relationship with New Zealand under free association makes this situation fundamentally different.

Comparing it to countries with dual citizenship outside of such an arrangement is false. The benefits of the current system – like the New Zealand passport and the associated rights – aren’t something those other countries enjoy, so the comparison falls flat. It seems like the PM might be grasping for justifications that don’t resonate with the public’s reality.

If the PM’s agenda is driven by personal motives rather than the nation’s best interests, it would erode public trust and put his leadership at risk, especially given the public’s strong attachment to the New Zealand passport. MPs, mindful of their constituents, would likely distance themselves from such an unpopular move to avoid political fallout. We the people decide what’s of benefit to us not what the Government states is of benefit to us, the government is there to govern on our behalf, not act as a dictator, that’s why we have democratic processes.

Te Tuhi Kelly

Progressive Party of the Cook Islands

Leader