Ten Years Together: Celebrating Regional Solidarity Through The NTSA
ALOFI, NIUE, 8 MAY 2025 – Fisheries officials from across the 17 Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), mark a decade of regional collaboration under the Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement (NTSA), during the 7th Meeting of the Parties in Niue.
The landmark event celebrates 10 years since the NTSA came into force in July 2014, strengthening regional cooperation in fisheries surveillance and law enforcement in the Pacific region.
The NTSA is a Subsidiary Agreement to the 1992 Niue Treaty, which was adopted on 2 November 2012 and came into force on 22 July 2014 following ratification by four Member countries.
It provides a legally binding framework for operational-level cooperation, and enables Pacific Island Countries to jointly undertake monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) of their fisheries resources.
The 7th Meeting of the Parties brought together 13 signatory Parties including Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, with four other FFA Members – Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, and Tokelau – who attended as observers.
The 10th Anniversary celebration provided an opportunity for Members to reflect on past achievements and reaffirm their commitment to sustainable fisheries management, to ensure that economic and social benefits continue to flow to Pacific communities.
'It is deeply meaningful to host this anniversary here in Niue, where the Treaty was first signed over three decades ago,' said Poi Okesene, Niue's Director of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries under the Ministry of Resources. 'To return to where it all began and mark 10 years of regional cooperation under the NTSA is a powerful reminder of our shared commitment to protecting our ocean resources together.'
Since its inception, over 40 cooperative MCS activities have been conducted under the NTSA framework, including joint patrols, capacity-building programs, Inzone, High Seas Surveillance, and technical resource support amongst the Parties. These activities have not only enhanced the region's ability to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing but also strengthened trust and operational readiness among the Pacific Island countries.
'Celebrating 10 years of the NTSA is a significant milestone for the Pacific,' said FFA Director-General, Noan Pakop. 'The Agreement demonstrates the power of regional cooperation and Pacific solidarity in the Monitoring and Surveillance of a vast Pacific Region.'
The key highlights from the past six meetings include:
Enhanced cross-border surveillance coordination
Increased deployment of patrol vessels and aircraft across EEZs
Expanded MCS training and experience exchange for national MCS officers
Strengthened legal and operational frameworks to support compliance
The NTSA is deeply aligned with the Blue Pacific and contributes to the key priorities of the 2050 Strategy, especially to ocean and environment, security, people-centred development and resource sovereignty and resilience.
As the Pacific marks the 10th Anniversary of this critical agreement, the NTSA remains a vital tool to the limited resources within Parties and in ensuring sustainable use of marine resources, supporting sustainability and resilience, and preserving ocean health for our future generations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today
The debate on whether Te Pāti Māori co-leaders will face the toughest Parliamentary sanctions ever dished out continues today after it was abruptly adjourned last month to give way to the Budget. The debate is set to begin around 3pm. It will be livestreamed at the top of this article. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Labour and the Greens MPs are expected to push fiercely for a weaker punishment while National is not expected to budge. Parliament's Privileges Committee has recommended suspending Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven days after a controversial haka in the House last year. The longest suspension in Parliament's 171-year history is three sitting days. The committee's recommendations will be put to the House for debate and likely pass. Labour's shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said Labour believed Te Pāti Māori had overstepped and that they should be sanctioned but that 21 days was disproportionate. 'Our contributions to the debate will be focused on that and not trying to defend their actions.' National minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he was keen to get the matter sorted. Last month, Bishop had unexpectedly called for the debate to be adjourned. Bishop's justification was that if the Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from Parliament that particular week, they would miss the debate on the Budget. He also believed delaying the debate would bring the temperature 'down a notch' after recent heated commentary. 'My strong preference would be for Parliament to deal with it, deal with it once, have a big debate about it and then finish it,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'It's before Parliament, we've had the report, frankly New Zealanders expect us to get on with the business of governing. This is a distraction from the major issues as to why we were elected to this Parliament.' The haka at the centre of the matter happened during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which was eventually voted down at second reading. The haka has since gone viral globally, amassing hundreds of millions of views on social media. Maipi-Clarke, Parliament's youngest MP, brought Parliament to a standstill when she began the haka while ripping up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal from Act leader David Seymour to replace the many Treaty principles developed over time by experts and the court with three new ones. Many perceived the bill as a threat to Māori and detrimental to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a catalyst of the massive hīkoi protest to Parliament in November last year. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer stood up and joined Maipi-Clarke in the haka, moving from their seats towards the Act party benches. Labour's Peeni Henare also moved away from his seat to perform. Henare later apologised to the Judith Collins-led Privileges Committee for knowingly breaking the rules by stepping away from his seat, but said he stood by his haka and would do it again. The trio from Te Pāti Māori were referred to the Privileges Committee but ignored the initial summons to appear in person, arguing they had been denied legal representation and the ability to appear together. At the time, they promised to hold a separate 'independent' hearing. Te Pāti Māori have been defiant in their defence of the haka. Waititi told reporters on Wednesday afternoon it was not clear exactly what the trio were being punished for. 'Some of the House found it intimidating, some of the House found it exhilarating because half of House stood up. We don't know what the reasons are for the 21 days sanctions.' Waititi spoke with The Hui soon after the committee's unprecedented recommendations were released. He said he was thinking about the people who had entrusted him to 'represent them the best way I know'. 'And that is to be unapologetic, that is to be authentic and honest and respectful of who we are. We should be able to do that without fear or favour and be able to do that without being ashamed of being Māori,' Waititi told The Hui host Julian Wilcox. 'What I feel is that we are being punished for being Māori. The country loves my haka, the world loves my haka, but it feels like they don't love me.'
The Spinoff
16 hours ago
- The Spinoff
What was Chris Bishop thinking? An earnest attempt to figure it out
It's an objectively crazy way to behave. But I kind of get it, writes Duncan Greive. This time last week, Chris Bishop was having an awesome day. A massive NZ music fan, heading to the big awards show – a great night ahead of him. I saw him there, standing alongside his colleague Paul Goldsmith, next to the bar during the intermission. Bishop looked like he was having an excellent time, though to be fair everyone did – the awards are huge and informal and a great night out. As we now know, the fun wouldn't last for Bishop. Within a couple of hours he'd muttered derisively during a performance by Stan Walker and had a confrontation with Don McGlashan, a singer and songwriter so universally beloved that both Newstalk ZB and RNZ, which agree on very little, describe him as a national treasure. By the following day, Bishop's comments had become the biggest news story to emerge from the awards in years, and Bishop no doubt deeply regrets not keeping his opinions to himself. In the week since, he has stood by his statements on the night but acknowledged, both to media and to the prime minister, that he 'should have kept my thoughts to myself'. Bishop confirmed to RNZ that he'd said something about 'performative acclaim' during Walker's performance and referred to it as 'a load of crap'. It was poor timing. It was also just plain wrong. Walker's performance was one of the highlights of the night, a soaring ballad (he is becoming New Zealand's Celine Dion – a huge compliment, to be clear) which really took flight when the room filled with supporters waving Toitū te Tiriti flags, prompting an outpouring from the room. This seems an open and shut case, and I'm not here to defend Bishop – that would be almost as foolish as his behaviour – but there are mitigating circumstances which feel material to the current public prosecution. 1. Toitū te Tiriti is a complex organisation Stuff political editor Luke Malpass once adroitly observed that the Green Party likely scoop up a non-trivial proportion of its votes from people who feel a general dread about the climate and environment, and feel marginally better by giving the party their vote, and don't look much deeper into the policy platform or what they most emphasise. There's a similar phenomenon at work with Toitū te Tiriti. It's both a phrase and an organisation, a sentiment and closely allied with a specific parliamentary party. The phrase is well-supported, with more than seven in 10 New Zealanders endorsing the idea of 'harmonious race relations through honouring te Tiriti', according to polling by the Human Rights Commission earlier this year. At a guess, Bishop is one of them, as among the most prominent and unambiguous members of the liberal wing of the National Party. However, Toitū te Tiriti is also an organisation, one which achieved an awe-inspiring level of support during the hīkoi mō te Tiriti earlier this year. The organisation created a vast, countrywide response to both the Treaty principles bill and what supporters perceive as a large number of policies which go against the spirit of te Tiriti. But while the support for that general idea is broad and will necessarily include voters for a number of parties, the organisation Toitū te Tiriti has deep ties to Te Pāti Māori, most notably through one of its key organisers, Eru Kapa-Kingi, a teaching fellow at the University of Auckland who stood unsuccessfully for parliament in the 2023 election on Te Pāti Māori's list. Supporting the phrase is one thing, supporting the organisation another, and knowing how to practically apply it across society and politics is, to put it mildly, complicated. This is likely what Chris Bishop was trying and failing to express in the moment. 2. Arts and culture has a near total lack of representation for right wing politics Labour's Willie Jackson is not wrong in his statement on the Chris Bishop affair. 'Look around the world, people have been doing that for years. Whether it's Bob Marley, Bono, whatever, it's been happening, it's not like something new. He should talk to his Shihad heroes, 'cause the lead singer there's got pretty good politics too.' The phrase 'good politics' is telling there, but likely to be something the vast bulk of the music awards crowd endorses. I am old enough to have been to music awards since Helen Clark was prime minister. She received cheers and appeared on stage, with (mostly) undivided affection from the crowd. Over the years the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick and Jacinda Ardern, before and after their elevation to party leadership, have been largely lauded while in attendance. One notable exception was Homebrew's Tom Scott, who condemned Ardern for not visiting Ihumātao during the occupation – essentially a criticism of a centre left prime minister from the left, asking for a more explicitly leftist position. Bishop is manifestly a very genuine fan of New Zealand music. He regularly goes to shows, buys t-shirts, advocates for it whenever he can. He attended multiple dates on the final Shihad tour. He is its most prominent and present champion within the National party, perhaps the biggest fan the party has ever had. He will also not be unaware of the general politics of not only musicians, but arts and culture makers and workers more broadly. But he shows up and attempts to present an acceptable face of a party and a broader worldview which is anathema to many fans and almost all makers in the rooms he frequents. Where culture and politics collide What likely boiled over in Bishop is the tension which is always present and rarely voiced in these discussions. Music, TV, film, arts and culture in New Zealand receives a significant amount of support from central and local government. It's not enough, and it's not a huge amount compared to some other countries. But it comes from all taxpayers and ratepayers, which naturally includes many people who hold differing political views. Who might believe in toitū te Tiriti (the sentiment), but not the particular ambitions and ties of Toitū te Tiriti (the advocacy organisation) as a microcosm of the broader goal. So Jackson is right, music has always been political. And Bishop was wrong: neither Walker's performance nor the emotional heft of the arrival of the Toitū te Tiriti flags and supporters in the room was 'a load of crap'. It was the undeniable emotional heart of the evening. But the Aotearoa Music Awards are publicly funded, and streamed on both TVNZ and RNZ. To have something so close to a party political moment within them would rankle those who don't share those politics. To put it another way, imagine Groundswell or Family First, neither of which are as party aligned as Toitū te Tiriti, showing up and the reception they would receive. It's part of an increasingly explicit and party political alignment of our cultural figures, particularly in these fractious times, where performers can feel contemptuous of the views of those who are elected to represent them. While arts funding does wax and wane according to different governments, the idea that it should exist has endured for decades. When it goes beyond statements to specific party-aligned organisations, the bipartisan support for such funding might become more contested. Not to mention its broad appeal, inside and outside of parliament.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
What is the future for the Waitangi Tribunal?
Now that the Treaty Principles Bill has been consigned to the bin some who want to keep up the conversation about sovereignty and rangatiratanga (Māori self-determination), are refocusing on the Waitangi Tribunal. On the one hand are those who believe the tribunal should be remade to have the power to make decisions which are binding on the government. This would make the tribunal the highest power in New Zealand, above Parliament. (Incidentally, King Charles may well have concerns if Parliament attempts to cede its authority). On the other hand there are those who say the tribunal has done its job and should be dismantled. One of the earliest documents in our history was the Treaty. This document was intended to provide for a peaceful society by, among other things, describing Queen Victoria as in charge, reserving to each tribe their lands, other possessions and their rangatiratanga. This was interpreted for many years as leaving each Māori tribe authority over their own affairs and assets and that Queen Victoria was generally in charge over all. The Waitangi Tribunal came into being in 1975. Its purpose was to make recommendations on claims relating to the application of the principles of the Treaty. For that purpose it is to determine what the Treaty means and whether certain matters are inconsistent with these principles. It costs around $21 million per annum to run. For most of us this tribunal was set up to right the wrongs perpetrated on Māori by the Crown confiscating lands and other possessions. For many years it has had widespread support from New Zealanders. The law establishing the tribunal specifically denies jurisdiction in regard to any Bill that has been introduced to Parliament, unless Parliament has resolved to refer it to the tribunal. As historical land claims are coming to an end, the publicised work of the tribunal has been taken up with making comment about a wide variety of issues, with a focus on the choices government might make. For example the tribunal has spent some years looking into health. The tribunal made a finding that "the health system has not addressed Māori health inequities in a Treaty-compliant way, and this is in part why Māori health inequities have persisted". When the government disestablished the recently established Māori Health Authority the tribunal found that the Crown prejudiced Māori by not engaging with them over the scrapping of the authority. The Waitangi Tribunal has also been conducting a long-standing inquiry into a variety of claims relating to freshwater. Giving evidence to this inquiry The New Zealand Māori Council in 2018 pushed for a water commission to be appointed (rather than elected) made up of 50% Māori to control all water in New Zealand. A lawyer representing over a dozen hapu and iwi said the way the Crown had managed freshwater and left Māori out of the process was similar to theft. This year the tribunal has found that the Treaty Principles Bill breached Treaty principles by failing to guarantee rangatiratanga. When it looked into the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill it found that, if it were enacted, this Bill would be of constitutional significance, as it seeks to influence the way Parliament makes law and therefore it is inherently relevant to Māori. A potted version of the history could be described as thus. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the Crown and various Māori tribes in New Zealand. This gave Queen Victoria overall control of New Zealand. Each tribe was guaranteed to keep ownership of their own land and possessions and to have internal control of their own affairs. Every citizen in New Zealand had the protection of the Crown. In 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to deal with legitimate grievances over confiscation of land and other possessions. It was expanded in 1985 in relation to historical claims. The tribunal has now interpreted its role as making pronouncements over any proposed legislation. It seems to have decided that all legislation can and would affect Māori, and if Māori could become part of a group who become or remain disadvantaged the law proposed is a breach of Treaty obligations. In our society, which now has many more than just British and Māori subjects, how can we best move forward? Will we continue with the tribunal with a focus on Māori to the exclusion of other priorities for government support hoping this will remain viable? Will we elevate the Waitangi Tribunal to make it the supreme decision-maker in New Zealand over all things which could possibly touch on the lives of Māori? Or might it be better to decide once the tribunal finishes its historic claims it is time to close it down, possibly replacing its role of critiquing government policies as they may affect Māori with a cheaper option? The challenge we have is to try to weave the Treaty and whatever arrangements we have around it with the primary duty of a stable democratic country to look after its most vulnerable without fear or favour. One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. Like Tolkien said. hcalvert@ • Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
