Editorial: Little will change in Tokelau

Symbolism, more than substance, was the hallmark of this week's vote by the people of Tokelau on independence from New Zealand. In effect, little was about to change, whichever way the poll of the residents of the tiny Pacific islands went. Indeed, that, in large measure, had had to be guaranteed before the Tokelauans would consent to the vote.

They, more than United Nations officials who had pressed hardest for the poll, worried about a potential downside for three atolls that have no harbours or airstrips and no capital, and support a population of 1400 living mostly by subsistence farming and fishing.

The very concept of a colony has, of course, been deeply unfashionable for many years. By the UN's reckoning, Tokelau was one of 27 names worldwide that should have been suitable for independence by 2000. Increasingly, this had become an embarrassment for New Zealand. It, after all, had never been averse to telling France to abandon its Pacific colonies. In the end, Wellington, as much as the UN, was pushing for a poll that would ask Tokelauans whether they wished to become self-governing in free association with New Zealand.

New Zealand has been at pains to point out that this status would merely formalise existing practice. Indeed, Tokelau already runs itself in most respects. It has developed its own legislative body, executive council and judicial system, runs its own budget and manages all its public services.

But about 80 per cent of that budget, a figure approaching $10 million, is made up of New Zealand aid. Most of this goes in grants to the Tokelau Administration to fund transport, education and health.

The people of Tokelau, like the micro-nations of Niue and Tuvalu, are in fact in no position to support themselves - and are never likely to be. New Zealand's record as a coloniser is chequered but it has, unquestionably, been beneficial to them. Their atolls boast full literacy and no poverty.

It is understandable, therefore, that the Tokelauans, cautious by nature, decided against taking even a symbolic step. Many cast a wary eye at Niue, which after Cyclone Heta's devastation in 2004 began to question whether it should remain self-governing in free association with New Zealand or whether, because it could not support itself, it would be wise to remove the costs imposed by self-government by reintegrating with New Zealand.

That did not, and will not, happen. Niueans have become proud of their ability to determine their own future, however limited that may be. Also, the UN would look askance at an act of recolonisation, whatever the factors at work. But that is not to say valid questions should not be asked about the realities of a lack of critical mass, or any natural resource that is likely to overcome it.

The advocates for Tokelau self-government acknowledged as much when they spoke of the prospect of attracting development aid from the European Union and other countries. In essence, they were admitting there was no way administrative self-reliance would be matched by an advance in economic independence.

New Zealand has made, and will continue to make, the difference between poverty and wellbeing in Tokelau. The enticing home of many of the 7000 Tokelauans now living in this country, another of the supposed upsides of a vote for self-government, will not eventuate. Where are the opportunities for them? Equally, aid from sources other than New Zealand is unlikely to start raining from the sky. In such circumstances, notions of nationhood go only so far. Symbolism becomes the order of the day.