All in the name of nation building

Why did the DPM go to New York?

The findings of the Review by the Audit office into the necessity for the Deputy Prime Minister’s trip to New York in August 2009 to personally submit our country submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf concerning the Manihiki Plateau were tabled in Parliament on Monday 23 November 2009.
The findings were the DPM’s trip was justified on two main grounds.
(1) If the submission was not physically delivered, there was a good chance it would go astray if a Diplomatic bag was used. If the submission was sent by Diplomatic bag and it went astray, failure to process the submission may affect the potential economic benefits.
(2) It was important to submit our papers before the other Pacific nations as we have the largest claim area and other Pacific nations are still negotiating with each other.
The above were the main reasons however, while the DPM was in New York there was a plan for him to travel to London for discussions with the Commonwealth Secretariat however this did not eventuate due to a last minute change of plans.
The two main reasons given above for the DPM’s travel which cost $26,578, do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Reason (1) above which refers to the Diplomatic bag overlooks the fact that Audit’s report says the submission was sent from London, England, presumably to the DPM in the USA, by courier. It reached him safely. So why could the submission not have been couriered directly to the UN Committee? That has not been commented on. Earlier reports were that the New Zealand officials at the UN had provided sterling assistance to the DPM so why were the NZ officials not asked to handle the submission on our behalf? That has not been commented on. The economic benefits referred to are not likely to be seen for some years to come. So what is the urgency? Is there an application already in the pipeline which the public does not know about?
As regards reason (2). This is not a valid reason. What other Pacific nations choose to do is their affair. If these other nations were nowhere near ready with their submissions, what was the urgency with our submission?
Earlier media reports suggested the DPM needed to physically be in New York to present a “Note Verbale.” However, there is no reference in the Audit report to such a document. What was this mysterious “Note Verbale?” What did it say?
The plain fact of the matter appears to be that the DPM wanted to be in New York for what he deemed to be an important occasion, a first in our history and an event to be looked back on in years to come as probably a defining moment for our small country. Part of the process of “nation building.” That’s a good enough reason for going so why didn’t the DPM just come out and say so.

Herald Issue 463 10 June
- World famous activist assisting residents
- Budget will decide if residents prosecute Government over landfill
- Forestry project sucking Mangaia dry
- Budget 2010 – fiasco or disaster?