Democratic Guardrails: Is NZ Safe From Authoritarianism?
Article – RNZ
Other nations are experiencing the erosion of democratic norms – even authoritarianism. Is our constitution strong enough to withstand it?
, Editor: The House
Benevolent democracy is not guaranteed. Nations can easily backslide down 'Despot Boulevard', eroding rights and freedoms, the rule of law or democracy itself.
The easy slide towards authoritarianism seems to have been particularly strong recently. Freedom House rankings between 2005 and 2021 show more countries have declined than have improved, every year but one. Sometimes, twice as many.
It's worrying to watch. It made me wonder what constitutional safeguards are there in our own democratic system to act as guardrails against governments stumbling off the democracy high road.
For help in answering the question I wandered across the street from Parliament to Wellington's law school (within Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington), to meet one of New Zealand's foremost constitutional scholars, Professor Dean Knight. You can listen to highlights from this interview at the link, or read below for examples of some of New Zealand's democratic guardrails.
Our small 'c' constitution
New Zealand does have a constitution, it's just not all in one place.
'We're an odd country with an unwritten constitution,' Knight says. 'We don't have that sort of MasterTech supreme constitution that regulates executive power very explicitly. We have what we might call a customary constitution, a multitext constitution. Our rules and expectations are littered all over the place – some of them written down in legislation, some of them written down in other important documents, some of them arise from just the practice – an expectation about exercising power in a proper way.'
'I guess the distinctive thing about New Zealand is a lot of the checks and balances and controls on executive power in our system are political in character, rather than legal and involving courts. So we position ourselves in a slightly different way than some other jurisdictions.'
I drew Knight's attention to one aspect of the constitution, lying on a desk where we were chatting – the current edition of the Cabinet Manual.
'We're very proud of it in New Zealand. It's something we've actually exported to the United Kingdom, who borrowed the idea of it from us. And what we have in that Cabinet Manual is essentially a collection of the existing constitutional conventions about how executive government, you know – ministers and the prime minister and departments, will exercise their power and run the state.'
Like many of the guardrails listed below, the Cabinet Manual is an example of something that is not nailed down, but evolves.
Responsible government, collective responsibility and playing it safe
Most checks on executive power flow from New Zealand's system of 'responsible government' – where the executive is a subset of the legislature, and the legislature can replace the executive or prime minister at will.
'The Parliament, the House, expresses its confidence in the collective of ministers as a whole. So there's an interlocking sort of relationship-confidence between those ministers. Decision-making in New Zealand, under the Cabinet system, is done collectively around the Cabinet table.'
Those layers mean that not only the prime minister or cabinet must be convinced of a policy, but a majority of their parliamentary party must agree as well.
'Everybody's concerned to maintain the confidence of their colleagues and the confidence of the House of Representatives and ultimately the people. That confidence… can evaporate, and so that conditions or causes a degree of restraint [against] the prime minister or ministers, acting to excess.'
Responsible government in practice – facing the Opposition
Donald Trump never has to stand in Congress and answer probing questions from the opposition. In New Zealand having to do so is a direct practical outcome of 'responsible government'. Question Time is not often allowed to function well, and many ministers avoid answering questions, but it is still a guardrail.
'Question Time is a crucial time for opposition members to hold the executive government to account. I know it feels like political theatre, but it actually has a really important role in the system.'
'The first obligation of accountability is to render account, and that's what happens – to explain what's going on in government, what's gone right, what's gone wrong, what's going to be fixing it. So that requirement to render account, whether it's Question Time, whether it's select committees through Scrutiny Weeks, or other things like that, it has a civilising effect on the exercise of power.'
MMP and negotiated majorities
Parliamentary democracies come with a significant potential weakness in guarding against autocracy; the group that supplies the executive has an automatic majority in the legislature. Under New Zealand's earlier First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system, that majority was usually held by a single party.
Our current proportional representation electoral system (MMP) has provided a new guardrail by typically requiring executive power to be negotiated between multiple political parties.
'In the pre-MMP days, …we did have times where we had a very dominant executive in the House of Representatives… That era is described as an 'elected dictatorship' or an 'executive paradise'. …And that's why we celebrate MMP – when it atomised that power.'
'It took us to a period of multiparty-government, where a cabinet or a prime minister couldn't automatically assume that their program would get through the House, and they had to negotiate and do better to try and ensure they can get the sort of support for different initiatives. …That sharing of power, that multi-party government brings in tensions and frictions, and slows the process down, and ideally removes excesses.
'The question we might want to ask is whether our parties have now mastered the system, such that we're returning to a time in which the Government can quite confidently just push everything through, and there isn't that contestation on a sort of a policy-by-policy basis.'
Courts and respect for the rule of law
In many countries, an early target for a wannabe dictator is the judiciary, particularly if there is a constitutional court or supreme court with power to overrule the executive or parliament. New Zealand's courts do not have that power, though they can point out where new law is contrary to the current constitution.
'Our system of parliamentary sovereignty means laws that are passed by the Parliament prevail, and nobody can disapply the product of Parliament, except in very unusual circumstances. But as a general proposition, the courts don't have the power to strike down legislation.'
Knight says governments abiding by the law is the 'first and fundamental guardrail… Law can be changed and the executive can change the legal settings if they want, but they need to change that law if they want to act differently.'
That may sound obvious, but as prime minister, Robert Muldoon tried to ignore the law – and his actions led to a constitutionally important court decision.
'Respect for the law is a fundamental, but it's also vulnerable… to political expediency. I think there's a good question to ask is – culturally, how strong is our commitment to the rule of law? Because that's what we're seeing being eroded elsewhere, and there's instances where the Trump administration has basically signalled that they don't care what the courts say.'
'But here in New Zealand, there's still a sense when the courts speak, and speak properly in terms of law, that that will be respected by our governments and adhered to.'
The public service: permanent, professional, politically neutral
In the USA, when the presidency changes so does the entire upper layer of government agency staff – as political appointments are replaced. A recently reiterated Trump executive order has deepened the allowance on those replacements by reclassifying many thousands of less senior, career public servants as political hires. This action undermines the 1883 Pendleton Act, which was passed to stop rampant political cronyism and corruption, referred to as the 'spoils system'.
Neither of these are issues in New Zealand, where government departments do not have political appointees – not even at chief executive level. Chief executives are appointed by the Public Service Commissioner.
New Zealand's professional, permanent and neutral public service is a strong democratic guardrail.
'That's really, really important in our system because it provides a stability in the system. It generates a degree of friction, because one of the key obligations of the neutral public service is to proffer free and frank advice.'
Our system includes people whose job includes saying to ministers, 'What the heck are you thinking?'
This crucial guardrail is at risk though because, Knight says, 'there is thinking that perhaps we should follow more of the US model or some of the Australian models that see politicians have a bigger say in the selection. It reduces… one of the key checks and balances that comes from that neutrality, that free and frank advice, if you're able to get people that are just heavily responsive to do your bidding.'
The Governor General: real soft power, theoretical hard power
One crucial aspect of New Zealand's constitution is that the actual power is formally vested in the sovereign, who only exercises that power on the advice of their ministers. The governor-general gets to wear the ribbons and medals but… 'they don't actually make the decisions about that power. That's done by ministers, Cabinet, who are drawn from the House of Representatives.'
Unlike in some nations, the Cabinet or prime minister cannot sign off executive orders themselves. The governor-general still has to sign all the laws, instruments and orders.
So what happens when a government has a particularly bad idea or plans to breach constitutional norms. Can the governor-general refuse to follow their advice?
Knight acknowledges 'there's a theoretical question about whether the governor-general could refuse or act differently, [but] we don't see that in practice.'
'It's a very, very strong constitutional convention, grounded in the idea of democracy – that when the prime minister and the ministers advise the governor-general to act in a particular way, they will do so. The governor-general has the ability to counsel and warn, and even say, 'I'm not convinced this is a great idea, but I'm obliged to give effect to it.'
'There is some of that soft power that lies in the governor-general.'
Knight suggests that requiring ministers to formally sit down with the governor-general and explain to them what they want to do and why, in effect to convince them, can act as a guardrail.
'It's not a high bar, because we know the practice over decades and decades and decades is the governor-general [has always agreed]. But that scintilla of doubt [that the governor-general could refuse], at least in a theoretical sense, might have some effective conditioning power. It may mean that prime ministers or ministers don't offer up advice that would be very egregious and extreme and things like that.'
Knight believes that separation of formal versus substantive powers is a useful guardrail – it 'in some ways conditions and constrains the use of power against its excesses.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Article – RNZ Explainer – A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles 'focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties,' while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are 'strongly libertarian in character'. The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a 'Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable' (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that 'regulation is all around us in our daily lives'. 'It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall – in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment.' But what does that actually mean? 'Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something,' said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. 'There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act,' University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill 'does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles '. 'It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing.' Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. 'Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact,' he said. 'And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions.' Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right – similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation 'in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles'. The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. 'This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been.' He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, 'any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding'. 'It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do,' Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent – or 76 submissions – supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would 'attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist'; 'result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking' and 'undermine future Parliaments and democracy'. Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will 'bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom'. Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that 'if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection'. It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had 'misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement' and it might have 'significant unintended consequences'. In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to 'build on the disclosure statement regime … and create new legislative provisions'. It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but 'that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits' and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. 'On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House,' Geddis said. 'The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue.' Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. 'That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty.' Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that 'every person is equal before the law,' which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. 'If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative.' Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. 'We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted… If that's not enough, then I don't know what is,' he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says 'legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment'. The question many opponents have raised is what 'compensation' might mean and who might seek it. 'Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action,' bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as 'a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense'. 'The bill itself is a mild transparency measure,' Wilkinson has also written. 'The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder.' 'At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking,' Seymour told Newsroom. 'We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing.' So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. 'This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it,' Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. 'Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question.' NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a 'work in progress' and Geddis said: 'It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners.' Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. 'Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider.' One last question – what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Warned Corruption And ‘Insider Threats' Increasing In New Zealand
Article – RNZ That's despite New Zealand's longstanding reputation as a country largely free of such issues. The government has been warned that corruption and 'insider threats' are increasing in New Zealand, despite the country's longstanding reputation as a country largely free of it. An advisory group says the country is poorly prepared to tackle the increasing threat and recommends developing a national anti-corruption strategy and modernising the Crimes Act, which the Minister responsible says is key. The Ministerial Advisory Group on transnational and organised crime was set up in February to provide independent advice and recommendations to improve the cross-government response to what Associate Minister of Police Casey Costello described as ' an increasing threat.' Previous reports have said New Zealand was 'losing the fight' against organised crime, and specified a need for police to have greater financial powers to fight it. The third report has stated New Zealand's 'lucrative market' and established crime networks have made the country 'more susceptible than ever' to corruption and insider threats. It also pointed to the 'deteriorating situation in the Pacific' as making the region more vulnerable. It defined corruption as the 'abuse of access or authority to advance the objectices of organised crime'. 'It is a critical enabler of organised crime, particularly at national borders. It grants criminal networks access to protection, sensitive information, and operational impunity. 'This is a real and increasing threat,' the report said. The group was told by enforcement agencies about 'trusted insiders' at ports and airports helping to retrieve concealed shipments of illicit drugs before customs inspections. 'That information is consistent with an unpublished global report which estimates that 70 percent of maritime seizures worldwide involved links to trusted insiders.' It raised a specific concern in the Pacific where exposure is increased due to expansive maritime borders, strategic trade corridors and growing cross-border flows of goods and people. 'When individuals in border security, customs, or immigration are compromised, criminal groups can exploit these weak points to smuggle drugs, weapons, other illicit goods, and people with minimal detection. 'Bribery, coercion, and cronyism can transform ports, airports, and checkpoints into open channels.' If corruption was left unchecked, the report warned it could erode the integrity of New Zealand's institutions and undermine its collective security. 'We are already seeing increasing pressure on Pacific nations which have limited capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute organised crime threats. 'The financial incentives offered by organised crime groups can be tempting – especially for those working in jobs with useful access, but low pay, in New Zealand and within the Pacific.' The advisory group reports to Costello who told RNZ she was not surprised by the contents of the report, except to learn that New Zealand was the only Five Eyes member who did not have an anti-corruption strategy. She did however believe New Zealanders might be shocked to learn corruption was getting worse, 'we've kind of considered ourselves as a little bit of a haven'. The report specified New Zealand's 'reputation as a country largely free from corruption has long been a source of national pride and international credibility'. But also pointed this had led to a 'degree of inertia,' referencing Julie Haggie, chief executive of Transparency International NZ, who said in the report 'New Zealand's response to increasing corruption pressures over several years has been lacklustre and complacent'. 'New Zealand is poorly prepared to deter and tackle the increasing threat of corruption, but that is not to say nothing is being done,' said the report. Costello said the report was not suggesting organisations were corrupt, but the ability for organised crime to target individuals was there. 'That's where we see that familial or cultural pressures, that ability to have control over individuals, and that's not just in the drug world.' She said New Zealand was not out of control, but the country needed to shift the way it was doing things, strengthen legislation and put clear strategies in place. Costello believed bringing the Crimes Act up to date to deal with corruption was one of the key recommendations. She said work being done at the moment was bringing agencies together to have consistency around sharing information. Another recommendation was to have a centralised agency that would have oversight across all agencies. 'Whether that's in the public service commission, or whether it's in police or SFO [Serious Fraud Office] or a new agency, it's having that one oversight so that we work more cooperatively.' In regards to the Pacific, she said it was important New Zealand supported its economic growth and viability. 'When people are poor, then the amount of money you need to corrupt someone is relatively low. 'Leaning in more to support those economies to help them not just gain knowledge, but actually keep these systems in place. 'How do they optimise their control of their border so they're collecting excise, that they're optimising the revenue they can get from legitimate business, as well as ensuring that they aren't corrupted.' She said the reports were about making New Zealanders more aware about organised crime and an appreciation of the challenges that it presents.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
French Polynesia President Announces Highly Protected Marine Area
Article – RNZ President Moetai Brotherson pledged to protect nearly 23 percent of French Polynesia's waters. French Polynesia's president has announced his administration will establish one of the world's largest networks of highly protected marine areas (MPAs). The highly protected areas will safeguard 220,000 square kilometres of remote waters near the Society Islands and 680,000 square kilometers near the Gambier Islands. Speaking at the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France, President Moetai Brotherson pledged to protect nearly 23 percent of French Polynesia's waters. 'In French Polynesia, the ocean is much more than a territory – it's the source of life, culture, and identity,' he said. 'By strengthening the protection of Tainui Atea (the existing marine managed area that encompasses all French Polynesian waters) and laying the foundations for future marine protected areas… we are asserting our ecological sovereignty while creating biodiversity sanctuaries for our people and future generations.' Once implemented, this will be one of the world's single-largest designations of highly protected ocean space in history. Access will be limited, and all forms of extraction, such as fishing and mining, will be banned. The government is also aiming to create a highly protected artisanal fishing zone that extends about 28 kilometres from the Austral, Marquesas, and Gambier islands and 55-and-a-half kilometres around the Society Islands. Fishing in that zone will be limited to traditional single pole-and-line catch from boats less than 12 metres in length. Together, the zones encompass an area about twice the size of continental France. President Brotherson also promised to create additional artisanal fishing zones and two more large, highly protected MPAs within the next year near the Austral and Marquesas islands. He also committed to bolster conservation measures within the remainder of French Polynesia's waters. Donatien Tanret, who leads Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy's work in French Polynesia, said local communities have made it clear that they want to see stronger protections that reflect both scientific guidance and their ancestral culture for future generations. 'These protections and commitments to future designations are a powerful example of how local leadership and traditional measures such as rāhui can address modern challenges.' Samoa announces MPAs Before the conference, Samoa adopted a legally binding Marine Spatial Plan – a step to fully protect 30 percent and ensure sustainable management of 100 percent of its ocean. The plan includes the establishment of nine new fully protected MPAs, covering 36,000 square kilometres of ocean. Toeolesulsulu Cedric Schuster, Samoa's Minister for Natural Resources and Environment, said Samoa is a large ocean state and its way of life is under increased threat from issues including climate change and overfishing. 'This Marine Spatial Plan marks a historic step towards ensuring that our ocean remains prosperous and healthy to support all future generations of Samoans – just as it did for us and our ancestors.'
