The islands that said no to freedom

A couple of boxes of sparkling white wine were shipped off to Tokelau with the voting papers for last week's referendum on whether New Zealand's last dependent territory wanted to be self-governing.

Presumably intended to toast a celebratory coming of age for the country, the bubbles - like the vote - didn't make it.

The United Nations Development Programme in Apia had provided the wine, but the cartons went missing somewhere between the wharf in Samoa and the Fakaofo atoll in Tokelau which was the last stop in a nearly week-long sea journey.

It wasn't needed anyway.

The 600 or so people of Tokelau registered to vote in the referendum did not say yes in sufficient numbers to reach the two-thirds majority needed to carry self-determination through, with only 60 per cent support for change.

The far flung territory of New Zealand, which initiated the process to reconsider its future, lost its nerve and decided to remain a colonial outpost instead.

The decision surprised pundits and the reasons for it may never be clear. Relevant factors seemed to range from healthy scepticism and caution through to fear of change, personality clashes and scaremongering.

And even though a proposed treaty would have locked New Zealand into providing ongoing funding to Tokelau, that due to international law could never be slashed without agreement, many locals were distrustful.

New Zealand Foreign Affairs officials and United Nations representatives had insisted they were not expecting or hoping for a vote for change.

But it was clear they were confident of a "yes" vote and their disappointment at the negative outcome was palpable.

There was even talk of a repeat referendum in a year's time.

Tokelau administrator Neil Walter wasted no time in telling the elders, or senior grey hairs as they call themselves, what they would now miss out on.

For instance, the country would not be able to become a full member of the Pacific Forum and they would not be eligible for the next cycle of European Union funding which starts this year.

A message from Prime Minister Helen Clark said she respected the wishes of the people of Tokelau but was disappointed with the result.

The senior grey hairs on the Fakaofo atoll where the referendum result was announced last Thursday just kept their heads down.

Earlier that day Mr Walter had sensed that something was "not right" at Fakaofo during the morning greeting of officials by village elders.

Locals told the Herald there had been a sea change in the previous few days with a swing against the proposal to become self-governing, and a rattling of people's confidence in such a move.

That contrasted to the upbeat attitude of the locals on Nukunonu atoll, 64km away, who from their leader down were all but celebrating a positive outcome.

Mr Walter, who has a highly competitive streak to his nature, could not have been happy with the final result.

He had strongly believed Tokelau would be better off under the new regime, even though he viewed the move to self-governance as basically confirming the status quo.

His arguments for change included giving Tokelau a more equal footing with New Zealand, a stronger voice internationally, and a sense of pride.

At each atoll Mr Walter had emphasised that Tokelau would continue to be supported by New Zealand but could seek extra funding from more countries if it voted for self-governance.

Tokelau's new-found status could have been his swansong in a long and distinguished career, which included serving as Foreign Affairs secretary.

It was not to be.

Mr Walter's voice faltered and he had tears in his eyes when he presented a greenstone pendant in appreciation of the dedicated work of Falani Aukuso, the general manager of Tokelau's public service, the night of the referendum decision.

It was a touching moment that had probably been expected to be one of joy, not sorrow.

Mr Walter later told the Herald there was a misalignment between authority and responsibility in Tokelau.

Tokelau wanted the authority to run itself but appeared to not then be prepared to take international responsibility for its actions and wanted to leave that to New Zealand, he said.

It would take some time for him to come to terms with the country's decision not to progress.

Mr Walter in part blamed the country's leadership with its elders who were not unified and were being challenged in their villages.

"A couple of helmsman broke loose."

His view agreed with that of Mr Aukuso who said the leadership should have been more cohesive.

The general fono (national council or government) had supported the proposals which included a carefully prepared draft constitution and treaty.

"Some in the public service forgot their official responsibilities to follow the Government policy and crossed the floor to become politicians."

Mr Aukuso also believed some Tokelauans were swayed by the views of New Zealand relatives who were against the country becoming more independent of New Zealand.

Ioane Teao, a Tokelauan community leader based in Porirua, said he was sure many of those in New Zealanders would have been in touch with their relatives back in Tokelau.

"I certainly did. My Dad is still alive in his eighties."

While there would have been some for and against the proposal, many did not believe Tokelau was ready to change.

Mr Teao also believed there was not enough explanation in Tokelau of some of the issues involved.

The Herald witnessed some confusion in Tokelau over what self-governance meant, and was told by one public servant there that the information provided had been one-sided.

Mr Teao said those in New Zealand, however, did comprehend the distinctions between integration, self-governance and full independence.

There was some concern New Zealand Tokelauans were not given the option of participating in the referendum, but they had finally accepted that.

"They are relieved Tokelau has now made a decision.

"And while all may not be happy with the outcome, it has their blessing," he said.

Mr Teao said while there was criticism that an estimated 30 per cent of eligible voters aged over 18 never registered, he felt there was good participation, given the almost full turnout of those who had.

Others argue that 30 per cent who boycotted the process (given it was virtually impossible not to be aware of the referendum on each highly consulted atoll of about 500 residents), when added with the 40 per cent of those who voted and said no, demonstrated a stronger opposition than was painted by New Zealand officials.

Joyce Yu, of the United Nations Development Programme, believes it was a landmark vote for Tokelauans who in her view had never undergone a fully democratic process before.

Tokelauans had not before actually gone into a polling booth and made their mark completely privately, she said.


Tokelau

* New Zealand's last dependent territory.
* Voted last week not to become self-governing.
* Population of 1500-1600.
* Comprised of three atolls lying just south of the equator.
* Receives NZ Aid of about $9 million a year.
* Area about 12 sq km
* Administered by New Zealand since 1926.
* Remains on United Nations' list of colonised countries.
* Has no airport, roads, cars or harbours.
* Has little scope for economic development.