Unlike in 1965, when Free Association was a decision made by the few, our path forward must be a decision made by the people – or not at all, writes Thomas Tarurongo Wynne.

Nonetheless, I agree with our Prime Minister that we should not be afraid to continue this conversation with both our people and New Zealand.

However, there is a marked difference between independence and being independent, because being independent means constitutional sovereignty in every way. If we were truly independent, we wouldn’t need to request anything from New Zealand regarding our status, passports, or, let alone, our path forward as a nation or our membership in global institutions. It is also interesting that despite this, on September 25, 2023, President Joe Biden announced that the United States recognised the Cook Islands as a sovereign and independent state.

In his New Year’s statement, Prime Minister Mark Brown said, “In 1965, we created history by becoming an independent nation. So today, let’s start creating new history that people in 60 years’ time will look back at us.” However, this statement requires further examination, as independence was, in fact, one of four options available to our leaders at the time, and it was clearly rejected.

So, what were the four options before us as a new nation in 1965?

Full independence: The Cook Islands would have become fully sovereign, with control over governance, foreign policy, and defence.

Full integration with New Zealand: The Cook Islands would have been fully integrated into New Zealand, granting Cook Islands citizens New Zealand citizenship and governance under New Zealand.

A seat in the New Zealand Parliament: The Cook Islands could have been represented in New Zealand’s Parliament, allowing Cook Islands citizens to influence both domestic and foreign policies.

Self-government in Free Association with New Zealand: This was the option chosen, where the Cook Islands would have control over internal affairs while maintaining New Zealand citizenship and remaining part of the Realm of New Zealand, alongside Niue and Tokelau.

In 1965, without a referendum from the people, our leaders alone decided not to pursue the path of independence, as Samoa had done on January 1, 1962. While this was just one of the four options placed before our Legislative Assembly, we must consider the political and social context of the time to fully understand the reasoning behind the choice of free association.

Did New Zealand’s preference for Free Association stem from concerns about our economic viability, given our small population and the growing migrant population in New Zealand? Or did the New Zealand government, under Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, believe the Cook Islands would struggle to sustain an independent economy without external support.

Free Association ensured New Zealand could continue providing financial aid and technical assistance, while the Cook Islands could manage its internal affairs – a balance that the New Zealand government was compelled to maintain due to both United Nations and domestic economic pressures. New Zealand needed our labour, and the free entry of Cook Islands citizens sustained and maintained that labour force in 1965.

Additionally, New Zealand’s need to fulfil its obligations under the United Nations while maybe keeping the Cook Islands within its sphere of influence. At the time, New Zealand was under pressure from the UN to offer genuine self-determination options, in line with the principles outlined in the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Resolution 1514).

Geostrategic and political considerations also played a role. The Cold War context, coupled with New Zealand’s desire to maintain strategic control over the Pacific, influenced the preference for Free Association over full independence for the Cook Islands. This was particularly true given Sir Albert Henry’s relationship with New Zealand’s trade unions and the Labour movement, of which he was a member.

This approach was largely shaped by New Zealand officials like Leslie Gandar and Leon Gotz, with Gandar playing a pivotal role in drafting our Constitution in 1964, just a year before we entered Free Association with New Zealand. So, in 1965, our leaders chose not to pursue full independence, and any decision going forward must include the people.

But again, and as we celebrate 60 years as a country, we should not be afraid of this conversation, of becoming in time independent – and more than just the independence we currently enjoy in 2024 and the two should not be confused as the same, independence and being independent. But only when it is the choice of, and driven by, the deep and connected desire of its people.