Update: All Māori Data Sovereignty posts have been combined and updated into a Compendium of Māori Data Sovereignty – https://www.taiuru.co.nz/compendium-of-maori-data-sovereignty/ 

A new and inclusive of all Māori people and societies, not just Iwi as has been the status quo since Māori Data Sovereignty was first discussed in 2016 or thereabouts, definitions of Māori Data and Māori Data Sovereignty are introduced. Then an analysis of how national and international treaties and other legal instruments impact Māori Data Sovereignty that impacts on all Māori Peoples and groups in addition to Iwi.

An opinion of the social licences and the need for a new Māori Data Sovereignty licence is explained.

This is the fifth in a series of articles I am writing about Māori ethics with AI, Data sovereignty and Robotics. Article 4: Treaty Clause Required for NZ Government AI Systems and Algorithms Article 3: Māori Ethical considerations with Artificial Intelligence Systems; Article 2:  Māori ethics associated with AI systems architecture and Article 1: Māori cultural considerations with Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. The next planned article is “Tikanga and Facial Recognition”.

 

Māori Data Definition

Datum, data, information or knowledge in any format or medium, which is about, from, is produced by Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū, iwi or Māori organisations either collectively or individually, describes Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations and their environments, has relationships with, or is made by Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations or contains any Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations content or association or may affect Māori, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations. Māori Data are a living taonga and are of strategic value to Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations (Taiuru, 2020).

 

Data is a Taonga

Data is ‘the new oil’ and most new business models are being built around ownership of data – corporates are hoarding data and it is driving disparities across our societies (Walker, 2020). Data has become a commodity sought after by scientists and biotech companies, each hoping to collect enough data to seek out new knowledge in new ways in areas including health studies, ethnic identity, targeted medicines, insurance, genetic modification of crops and species including discussions of de-extinction (Cohen, 2014). Nowadays, public, and private organizations understand the value of data. Data is a key asset to improve efficiency in today’s dynamic and competitive business environment (Oliveira, Rodrigues, & Henriques, 2005).

The New Zealand Government Chief Data Steward’s Data Strategy and Roadmap For New Zealand (2018) makes statements that allude the importance of data and refers to Data being a taonga (Steward, 2018). The roadmap states among other things:

• Two Māori values in particular will support a trusted data system: manaakitanga (data users show mutual respect) and Kaitiakitanga (all New Zealanders become the guardians of our taonga by making sure that all data uses are managed in a highly trusted, inclusive, and protected way).

Other statements from the Roadmap for New Zealand, that reinforce that Data is a taonga recognized by government:

• We envisage a future where data is regarded as an essential part of New Zealand’s infrastructure.
• Our ambition is to unlock the value of data for the benefit of New Zealanders.
• The value of data lies in its use
• The availability of new data sets and sophisticated technologies has enabled new and exciting data uses that continue to transform how individuals see, act, and engage with the world.
• Data fuels the digital economy, modernising our way of life and enabling innovation across industries and sectors.
• We are increasingly seeing new uses of data that will impact our world in profound ways in the near future.
• The uptake in new technologies such as cognitive computing and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are enabling new and innovative data uses that continue to transform how individuals see, act and engage with the world.

Within the roadmap is another section called “Commitment to the Crown-Māori Treaty Partnership”. While there is a misunderstand about the tikanga involved, it does form a good basis for a foundation with which to work upon.

New Zealand recognises the importance and value of the Treaty of Waitangi that establishes Māori as Partners with the Crown. There are new opportunities for the Crown to engage with Māori on the full breadth of issues in the current environment to ensure the Crown is meeting its Treaty obligations and supporting Māori to activate their full potential in a new world of possibility. Two Māori values in particular will support a trusted data system: manaakitanga (data users show mutual respect) and Kaitiakitanga (all New Zealanders become the guardians of our taonga by making sure that all data uses are managed in a highly trusted, inclusive, and protected way).

The New Zealand Government in 2020 released an Algorithm charter for Aotearoa New Zealand. The Charter ignores Māori rights and Te Tiriti obligations in direct contradiction to the Chief Data Steward’s comment in 2018. For further information  https://www.taiuru.co.nz/nz-algorithm-charter-further-risks-maori/

For a Te Ao Māori perspective of why data is a Taonga refer to Data is a Taonga. A customary Māori perspective is retrievable from https://www.taiuru.co.nz/data-is-a-taonga/

 

Māori Data Sovereignty a Definition

Over the past four years there has been such a directed focus on Iwi rights with Data held by the Crown that the definition of Māori Data Sovereignty has neglected traditional and modern Māori societal hierarchy and rights.

Another issue is that the term Māori Data Sovereignty has been modelled on Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles, despite Māori having different societal hierarchy and treaties such as He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti and other significant instruments and legislation. This has created confusion with both Māori, government, and academia.

The following is a definition that more accurately reflects traditional and modern-day Māori society and recognises the protection to Māori by the Crown with New Zealand’s founding constitutional documents He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti.

This definition is the umbrella definition of Māori Data Sovereignty and should be adapted depending on the circumstances.

Māori Data Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights and interests of Māori, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations have in relation to the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, re-use and control of data relating to Māori, whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations as guaranteed in He Whakaputanga and or Te Tiriti and the provided recognition of rights with the United Deceleration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Taiuru, 2020).

 

Te Mana Rauranga Māori Data Sovereignty Network Definition and analysis.

The modified definition above differs from the Te Mana Rauranga Māori Data Sovereignty Network:

Māori Data Sovereignty supports tribal sovereignty and the revitalisation of Māori and Iwi aspirations

This definition is useful and has provided protection to date, for government to engage with Iwi as this allows the government to work with only one Iwi group, the Iwi Leaders Forum and their sub group the Iwi Leaders Data Forum. The Iwi Leaders Forum only represents a portion of Iwi (about 50) while StatsNZ recognise 170 Iwi. The definition also does not represent other Māori societal groups who contribute to Māori Data and the fact that one person is likely to associate with multiple Iwi.

Other issues of the definition above are that Iwi are not sovereign nations like the Indigenous tribes in America and Canada. Iwi are often legislated bodies of elected representatives, commercial entities, charitable trusts, conglomerates and amalgamations of other Iwi and groups. StatsNZ Census 2018 states only 20% of Māori Peoples know or engage with their Iwi. In Ngāi Tahu, less than 10 % of its 65000 members participate in their rūnanga who elect a representative to the tribal council to make decisions about the Iwi. Hapū are often autonomous from an Iwi, as are whānau and Māori organisations.

The aspirations of Iwi are very different from Iwi to Iwi. Some Iwi are multi million dollar corporates, while other Iwi have no finances or property and are seeking to reclaim their identity. Each Iwi have their own aspirations which differ or contradict other Iwi.

Māori is a general term used by colonial settlers to categorise the Indigenous Peoples of New Zealand. New Zealand statutes allow any person who has a descendant who is Māori to claim to be Māori. There is no way to prove that a person is Māori and rightfully so.

The term Māori does not mean an Iwi and a hapū which is a collective of Māori Peoples with intergenerational inherited rights and obligations. Thus, it is important to differentiate between Māori and Iwi, hapū, whānau and organisations.

To adequately reflect and represent Māori societal hierarchy, the following sub definitions are applicable:

 

Iwi Māori Data Sovereignty

Iwi Māori Data Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights and interests that iwi have in relation to the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, re-use and control of data relating to a specific Iwi as guaranteed in He Whakaputanga and or Te Tiriti and the provided recognition of rights with the United Deceleration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

 

Hapū Māori Data Sovereignty

Hapū Māori Data Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights and interests of hapū (individual or collectively) in relation to the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, re-use and control of data relating to hapū as inherited by whakapapa with mana atua, mana tangata and or reflected in He Whakaputanga and or Te Tiriti and the provided recognition of rights with the United Deceleration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Marae/Rūnanga Data Sovereignty

Marae/Rūnanga Data Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights and interests of Marae/Rūnanga (individual or collectively) in relation to the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, re-use and control of data relating to a Marae/Rūnanga as inherited by whakapapa with mana atua, mana tangata and or reflected in He Whakaputanga and or Te Tiriti and provided recognition of rights with the United Deceleration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Rōpū Māori Data Sovereignty

Rōpū Māori Data Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights and interests of Māori organisations (commercial, not for profit, collectives, representatives, consortiums) have in relation to the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, re-use and control of data relating to Māori organisations Māori Peoples as inherited by whakapapa with mana atua, mana tangata and or guaranteed to Māori Peoples members in He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti and the provided recognition of rights with the United Deceleration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Whānau Māori Data Sovereignty

Whānau Māori Data Sovereignty refers to the inherent rights and interests Whānau Māori, whānau have in relation to the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination, re-use and control of data relating to whānau Māori as inherited by whakapapa with mana atua, mana tangata and as guaranteed in He Whakaputanga and or Te Tiriti and the provided recognition of rights with the United Deceleration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

 

 

Licences

Māori Data Sovereignty must in addition to the physical location of Māori data, include the software/hardware/services licences. Proprietary licences and licences that prevent or limit any access to the source code, Māori Data or by product of Māori data or that take any intellectual property rights to the Māori Data or by product of Māori data is a direct breach of Māori Data Sovereignty principles.

The use of proprietary licences with Māori Data could be considered the same as the natural resources and land that was confiscated during colonisation. While the natural environment and lands were protected by Māori who had an intimate knowledge of each aspect of the environment and who needed the natural environment to survive, tell their own stories of histories, whakapapa, lore’s and much more. Then colonisation forced Māori to pay for the right to access and protect their own resources through confiscations, purchases, sales, transfers, rates, and legislation that removed many of the original rights and created a limited way knowledge could be kept and utilised.

The use of Social Licences for Māori Data is often promoted with government exclusively for Iwi Data. The fundamental flaw with a Social Licence for Māori Data is that the rights of Māori Peoples, hapū, whānau, Iwi and Māori organisations are not recognised with Māori Data Sovereignty. Fundamentally, a social licence has the potential to protect Māori Data, but it would require significant engagement with the relevant Māori societal group.

Other potential licences are Creative Commons which more closely align to Māori cultural practices with knowledge, including but not limited to whakapapa, koha, hau, tapu and noa. Consideration and colaboration could also be given to the living Kaitiakitanga License by Hiku Media [1].

There are currently no single solutions to recognise Māori Data Sovereignty creating a dire need for a Māori Data Sovereignty Licence that recognises to the full extent the rights and obligations to Māori Peoples, Whānau, Hapū, Iwi and Māori Organisations Data.

 

He Whakaputanga – Declaration of Independence

He W[h]akaputanga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, also known as the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand. This Māori-language document is often called by its shortened name, He Whakaputanga. Translated, it can mean ‘an emergence’, referring to the birth of a new nation, Nu Tireni – New Zealand – but also marking steps towards unified forms of governance among the many different rangatira and their hapū and iwi (Tribunal, 2014, pp. 153-154).

Thirty-four northern Māori rangatira representing 6 Iwi in the far North (Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Wai, Te Roroa, Ngāti Wai, Nga Puhi and 44 hapū signed the Declaration on 28 October 1835. They became known as the Confederation of United Tribes. By 22 July 1839 another 18 Northern chiefs had signed. Two of these chiefs from out of Northland signed: Te Hāpuku of Hawke’s Bay (Ngāti Te Whatuiāpiti, Ngāti Kahungunu, Rangitāne, Ngāti Ira, Hapū Ngāti Rangikoiānake) and Te Wherowhero, the Waikato Tainui ariki who was to become the first Māori king in 1858. This document became known as the codicil. The codicil explained that the rangatira who signed had not been able to attend the gathering because of floods and other reasons, but that they fully supported the declaration of independence of Nu Tireni and entered into the confederation of chiefs.

The Declaration arose in response to concerns over the lawlessness of British subjects in New Zealand, and in response to a fear that France would declare sovereignty over w Zealand. At this time a Frenchman, Charles de Thierry who titled himself ‘Charles, Baron de Tierry, Sovereign Chief of New Zealand and King of Nuku Hiva’ (in the Marquesas Islands) was seeking to establish a colony on a 16,000-hectare (40,000-acre) plot of land he claimed to have purchased in the Hokianga (Fitzgerald, 2011, p. 61).

He Whakaputanga has often been considered no more than a minor prelude on the journey to the Treaty of Waitangi (Tribunal, 2014, p. 195). Yet such a viewpoint considerably undersells He Whakaputanga. For one thing, it was British acknowledgement of the validity of the Declaration of Independence that made it necessary to seek a cession of sovereignty when the British government decided to intervene further in New Zealand in 1839.

The Crown had recognised the sovereign authority of the United Tribes of New Zealand and would need the agreement of those rangatira in order to alter that situation (Kawharu, 1989, p. 130).

This new sense of nationhood was still in its infancy at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Yet for many Māori, the Treaty did not, and could not, erase the clear assertion of rangatiratanga – chiefly authority or sovereignty – made through He Whakaputanga. For that reason and others, He Whakaputanga remains a taonga of great significance today (O’Malley, Harris, Archives, & National Library of New, 2017).

Many of those later movements looked to He Whakaputanga as a source of rights for Māori in the post-1840 world. The text of the document was published in Māori newspapers such as Te Wananga, was read aloud during gatherings of iwi at Ōrākei and Waitangi in the early 1880s, and cited by the Māori MPs and in petitions to Parliament as a basis for Māori claims to self-determination. Hōne Heke Ngāpua, the MP for Northern Māori, read the full text of He Whakaputanga in Parliament in 1894, for example, when introducing the second reading of his Native Rights Bill, an unsuccessful attempt to secure constitutional rights for Māori to administer their own affairs.

In May 1836 the British government acknowledged receipt of an English translation of He Whakaputanga, promising ‘those Chiefs such Support and Protection as may be consistent with a due Regard to the just Rights of others and to the Interests of His Majesty’s Subjects’ (Lord Glenelg to R. Bourke, 25 May 1836, Great Britain Parliamentary Papers, 1837–38 (680), p.159)

It has often been considered no more than a minor prelude on the journey to the Treaty of Waitangi. Yet such a viewpoint considerably undersells He Whakaputanga. For one thing, it was British acknowledgement of the validity of the Declaration of Independence that made it necessary to seek a cession of sovereignty when the British government decided to intervene further in New Zealand in 1839. The Crown had recognised the sovereign authority of the United Tribes of New Zealand and would need the agreement of those rangatira in order to alter that situation.

Without He Whakaputanga there might have been no Treaty of Waitangi (O’Malley & Harris, 2017). For many Māori, the Treaty did not, and could not, erase the clear assertion of rangatiratanga – chiefly authority or sovereignty – made through He Whakaputanga. For that reason and others, He Whakaputanga remains a taonga of great significance today (O’Malley & Harris, 2017).

He Whakaputanga asserted that New Zealand was an independent Māori state that power resided fully with Māori, and that foreigners would not be allowed to make laws.

He Whakaputanga was – and remains – proof that the rangatiratanga and mana of Māori had been clearly articulated and asserted. New Zealand had been a sovereign land under the authority of the united tribes before 1840; and, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, that sovereignty was not extinguished by the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty itself was another step in the ever-deepening alliance or covenant with Britain. And as later events made clear, Ngāpuhi expected that relationship to be maintained and reciprocated by the Crown after 1840.

The English draft of the document was written by James Busby and was translated into Māori by the missionary Henry Williams. Eruera Pare Hongi wrote the final copy in Māori, which was the version that was signed. There are vast differences between the two texts (O’Malley & Harris, 2017). The Waitangi Tribunal agreed that the reo Māori version of the declaration is the definitive version  (Tribunal, 2014, p. 198).

Article I

Declares that New Zealand is as an independent state with the chiefs of The United Tribes of New Zealand as the leaders. This provides obligations to the tribes, hapū and whānau who were signatory to He Whakaputanga of Data Sovereignty and the rights to exercise tikanga Māori and meaningful engagement with the Crown.

Article II

Declares that the signatory chiefs are solely responsible for making new laws and governments. That no one else has the right to do so without the permission and cooperation of the “The Sacred Confederation of Tribes of New Zealand” (Henare, 2003).

This states that the sovereign power is held collectively by the chiefs of The United Tribes of New Zealand providing the signatory tribes to He Whakaputanga the rights to continually practice their own kaitiakitanga with Māori data.

Article III

Provides a commitment to meet each year in Waitangi to enact laws so that peace will prevail in New Zeeland. An invite to southern tribes to join the confederation (Henare, 2003).

This provides the tribes with protection of their spiritual, cognitive, emotional, and physically assets including with their own data. The Tribes could have protected by their own tikanga with Māori Data and its sovereignty.

Article IV

Is an agreement that the King of England will receive a copy of the declaration to express the chief’s appreciation and for his approval of their flag. The chiefs also asked of the King of England, that he be a parent to their infant state and protect it from all attempts on its independence (Henare, 2003).

This article highlights the amicable relationship Māori were seeking with the Crown and how in today’s modern society the trade and exploitation of Māori data would not have occurred. There would have been proper consideration of tikanga by Māori chiefs.

 

 

Treaty of Waitangi 1840

The Treaty of Waitangi is one of the major sources of New Zealand’s constitution [2]. The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand. It is an agreement entered into by representatives of the Crown and of Māori iwi (tribes) and hapū (sub-tribes). It is named after the place in the Bay of Islands where the Treaty was first signed, on 6 February 1840.

As with He Whakaputanga, the Treaty of Waitangi has a Māori version which the Māori chiefs who were signatories discussed, debated and then signed. Then an English version which differs and a translated version from Māori into English. All references to The Treaty are in relation to the Māori text often and more correctly referred to as Te Tiriti.

The Treaty was not drafted as a constitution or a statute. It was a broad statement of principles upon which the British officials and Māori chiefs made a political compact or covenant to found a nation state and build a government in New Zealand to deal with pressing new circumstances. Like many treaties, it is an exchange of promises between the parties to it. The Treaty creates a basis for civil government extending over all New Zealanders, on the basis of protections and acknowledgements of Maori rights and interests within that shared citizenry.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles of partnership, participation and protection provide a framework for identifying Māori ethical issues, or Tikanga in terms of; rights, roles and responsibilities of researchers and Māori communities; the contribution that research makes towards providing useful and relevant outcomes; and addressing inequalities.

Preamble

The Preamble of Te Tiriti suggests that the Queen’s main promises to Māori were to provide a government while securing tribal rangatiratanga (chiefly autonomy or authority over their own area) and Māori land ownership for as long as they wished to retain it. The preamble sets the discussion point for a Māori data sovereignty.

Article I

Promises Māori to ability to keep their authority to manage their own affairs in return for the promise of protection. This is good governance and partnerships aspect and allows Māori to recognise that Data is a Taonga, to claim Data Sovereignty to co govern, co manage, co design and co create digital systems that use Māori data that impact Māori.

Article II

States Māori were guaranteed by the Crown the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Maori Data is a Taonga. Māori have the right and undisturbed possession of their Māori Data to avoid exploitation piracy, manipulation, shared without consent and taken offshore without consultation.

Article III

The Crown promised to Māori equal rights, thus allowing the preservation of the Māori people’s tikanga. Māori have inalienable rights to Māori Data as it contains a whakapapa and mauri, therefore is a taonga. Researchers and governments have obligations to consult with Māori about Māori Data

Data Governance/Co-Design/Co Management Principles

The Waitangi Tribunal have identified a number of core principles that have emerged from Tribunal reports, which have been applied to the varying circumstances raised by the claims. These principles are often derived not just from the strict terms of the Treaty’s two texts, but also from the surrounding circumstances in which the Treaty agreement was entered into. These principles include but are not limited to: Partnership, Reciprocity, Autonomy, Active protection, Options, Mutual benefit, Equity, Equal treatment and Redress.

Three principles commonly recognised by government and first outlined in the Royal Commission on Social Policy (1988) are:

1. Partnership: interactions between the Treaty partners must be based on mutual good faith, cooperation, tolerance, honesty and respect
2. Participation: this principle secures active and equitable participation by tangata whenua
3. Protection: government must protect whakapapa, cultural practices and taonga, including protocols, customs and language.

All three of the above principles should be considered and used when entering partnerships with Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū, Iwi and Māori Organisations when using Māori data.

 

Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

An Act to provide for the observance, and confirmation, of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims.

It is important to note that it is not only Iwi can make a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal for breaches of Te Tiriti, but any person of Māori descent as individuals or as a collective, whānau, iwi, hapū and Māori organisations claiming that an ordinance, Act or regulation, order, proclamation, notice or other statutory instrument, or policy or practice, or an act or omission of the Crown has prejudicially affected the claimant(s) and that the law, or the action, omission, practice or policy is inconsistent with the principles of the Te Tiriti.

 

Māori Language Act 2016

The Waitangi Tribunal in 1993 with Claim WAI 11 found that the Māori Language is a Taonga guaranteed by Article II. The WAI 11 claim was the foundation claim for The Māori Language Act 1987, later repealed by section 48 of the Māori Language Act 2016.

The Māori Language Act 1993 and the repeal of 2016 gave official language status to the Māori language, and gave speakers a right to use it in legal settings such as courts. It also established the Māori Language Commission, initially called Te Komihana Mō Te Reo Māori, to promote the language and provide advice on it.

Any Data that contains Māori language is further reinforced as a Taonga and such considerations are required with Māori Data and its sovereignty.

 

The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples 1993

In recognition that 1993 was the United Nations International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples; the Nine Tribes of Mataatua in the Bay of Plenty Region of Aotearoa New Zealand convened the First International Conference on the Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (12-18 June 1993, Whakatane).

Over 150 delegates from fourteen countries attended, including indigenous representatives from Ainu (Japan), Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Surinam, USA, and Aotearoa.

The Conference met over six days to consider a range of significant issues, including the value of indigenous knowledge, biodiversity and biotechnology, customary environmental management, arts, music, language and other physical and spiritual cultural forms. On the final day, the following Declaration was passed by the Plenary.

The Mataatua Declaration has been the most comprehensive statement by Māori on cultural and intellectual property rights. It was presented to the United Nations and has been signed by 150 groups and nations.

On the final day, The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples 1993 was passed by the Plenary.

This document and the Treaty of Waitangi have been critical in the cultural and intellectual property rights struggles for Māori.

The Mataatua Declaration states that indigenous people are willing to share their knowledge with humanity provided their fundamental rights to define and control their knowledge is respected. Furthermore, that indigenous peoples are not anti-science or anti-development, but they do want their integrity of life and cultural knowledge to be respected. This statement allows for genomic research in a tikanga appropriate manner. Therefore, the Mataatua Declaration must be considered with all Māori Data Sovereignty engagements and research.

 

United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights 2007

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples GA Res 61/295 (2007) (which New Zealand officially endorsed in 2010 and in 2019 a roadmap to compliance is being undertaken by government), although not yet creating any binding legal obligations, is consistent with and complements the Treaty principles and duties as described in [2.47]. The Declaration’s emphasis on self-determination in arts 3–4 provides international support for the recognition of rangatiratanga in New Zealand. In addition, article 31 of the Declaration imposes a duty on States to assist in the protection of indigenous resources including their “cultural heritage”, “traditional knowledge” and “human and genetic resources”. This aligns with the Treaty’s approach to taonga.

The following articles should be considered for Māori data usage and storage:

Articles; 1,2,3,7,8,9,11,12,15,16,21, 25, 27, 31, 39.

Article 1

Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.

Article 2

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 7

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.
2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities.

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources.

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights.

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration.

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Article 9

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned. No discrimination of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

Article 11

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.
2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

Article 12

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practise, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.
2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.

Article 15

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.
2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments of society.

Article 16

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflect indigenous cultural diversity. States, without prejudice to ensuring full freedom of expression, should encourage privately owned media to adequately reflect indigenous cultural diversity

Article 21

1. Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security.
2. States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.

Article 27

States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.

Article 31

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.

Article 39

Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.

 

 

Big Data Open Data Taskforce in October 2018

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy has been engaged with indigenous data sovereignty. The Special Rapporteur’s Report on the work of the Big Data Open Data Taskforce in October 2018 explicitly addresses indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous Peoples’ inherent sovereignty over the data collected from them, about them and their resources in paragraphs 52., 72. 73.74, 75 (Cannataci, 2018). And again, in the 2019 Report from the Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Use of Health-Related Data where several definitions were also introduced (Cannataci, 2019).

 

References

Cannataci, J. A. (2018). Big Data Open Data Taskforce. Retrieved from

Cannataci, J. A. (2019). Protection and Use of Health-Related Data. Retrieved from

Cohen, S. (2014). The ethics of de-extinction. NanoEthics, 8(2), 165-178.

Fitzgerald, C. (2011). Te Wiremu – Henry Williams: early years in the North. Wellington, N.Z: Huia.

Henare, M. A. (2003). The changing images of nineteenth century Māori society: from tribes to nation : a thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Maōri Studies.

Kawharu, I. H. (1989). Waitangi: Maori and Pakeha perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland, N.Z: Oxford University Press.

O’Malley, V., & Harris, A. (2017). He Whakaputanga: the declaration of independence, 1835 . Wellington, New Zealand:

Oliveira, P., Rodrigues, F., & Henriques, P. R. (2005). A formal definition of data quality problems. Paper presented at the ICIQ.

Taiuru, K. (2020). Māori Genetic Data- Inalienable Rights and Tikanga Sovereignty. (PhD Thesis). Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi,

Tribunal, Waitangi. (2014). He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty: The Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry.

Walker, D. T. W. (2020). [Personal Correspondence].

 

[1] https://github.com/TeHikuMedia/Kaitiakitanga-License/blob/master/LICENSE.md

[2] Other major sources are The Constitution Act 1986, the prerogative powers of the Queen, the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Senior Courts Act 2016, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and other relevant New Zealand statutes, relevant English and United Kingdom statutes, relevant decisions of the courts and the conventions of the constitution.