As opposed to conforming to Eurocentric values and academic comfort levels, this guideline is the first published bioethics guideline encapsulating traditional and modern mātauranga Māori, to explore ethical research & storage of Māori genetic samples.

This is the complete guideline with the ISBN: 978-0-9582597-8-1.

 

Similar to the New Zealand Health system overhaul (2022) to truly represent Māori, this guide highlights the need for a significant transformation from Eurocentric and colonised bioethics guidelines to a mātauranga Māori guideline for Māori by Māori.

Based on my unpublished PhD thesis titled ‘Māori Genetic Data – Inalienable Rights and Tikanga Sovereignty’ from Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi that I completed under the supervision of Professor Taiarahia Black of Ngāi Tūhoe, Te Whānau a Apanui, Te Arawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa and Ngāi Te Rangi descent. It involves tens of tens of interviews and over a hundred reviewed literature items.

KO WAI AU

Pepeha is a medium by which sacred and profane knowledge is passed from one person to another regarding the speaker’s identity. It embraces charms, witticisms, figures of speech, boasts and other sayings (Williams, 1971, p. 274).

“Pepeha are used especially (but by no means exclusively) for sayings that encapsulate the boundaries or characteristics of a tribal group or region. It is etiquette to introduce yourself and it is an important part of building a sense of identity and belonging. Pepeha are essential ingredients in formal oratory, and indeed continue to be a primary means of conveying important social, cultural, legal and political principles and information” (Benton, Frame, Meredith, & Te Mātāhauariki, 2013).

Each of my iwi identified in this publication begins has a pepeha unique to that Iwi. The pepeha identify my landmarks and my whakapapa to the land, atua, kaitiaki (guardian), Taonga Species, people and to the marae.

As a researcher dealing with Māori biological samples of Taonga Species, it is important to be able to clearly identify who you are and where you come from. Without a pepeha, a researcher should not have access to any Taonga Species biological data.

Nō reira, anei ōku pepeha!

He uri au ratou: Ngāi Tahu (Koukourarata, Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki, Rāpaki, Taumutu, Ngāti Waewae, Waihao, Waihōpai, Wairewa, Hokonui), Waitaha, Kāti Mamoe, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Rārua/Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Hauiti, Ngāti Whitikaupeka.

I am a tribal descendant of the following tribes: Ngāi Tahu and 9 if its 18 tribal councils that comprise of many clans including: Koukourarata, Kāti Huirapa ki Puketeraki, Rāpaki, Taumutu, Ngāti Waewae, Waihao, Waihōpai, Wairewa, Hokonui; Waitaha, Kāti Mamoe, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Ngāti Rārua/Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Hikairo, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Hauiti, Ngāti Whitikaupeka.

 

Ko Makawhiu, Uruao, Tākitimu kā waka.
Ko Te Ahu Pātiki, Te Pōhue kā mauka.
Ko Kahukunu rāua ko Koukourarata kā aua.
Ko Te Arawhānui a Makawhiu, rāua ko Koukourarata kā moana.
Ko Ngāi Tūhaitara, Ngāi Tūtehuarewa, Ngāti Huikai kā hapū.
Ko Tūtehuarewa te whare.
Ko Te Pātaka o Huikai te wharekai.
Ko Te Whare Karakia Mihinare ki Puari te whare karakia.

Ko Tākitimu, Uruao, Makawhiu kā waka
Ko Te Poho o Tamatea Pōkai Whenua te mauka
Ko Ōmaru te aua
Ko Whakaraupō te moana
Ko Ngāti Wheke te hapū
Ko Te Rakiwhakaputa te Takata
Ko Te Rāpaki o Te Rakiwhakaputa te marae
Ko Wheke te whare tipuna

Ko Tākitimu te waka
Ko Nuku Mania te mauka
Ko Ōrakaia, Waikekewai, Waitatari, Waiwhio kā aua
Ko Waihora te Roto
Ko Te Kete Ika a Rakaihautū te moana
Ko Ngāti Moki rāua ko Ngāti Ruahikihiki kā hapū
Ko Ngāti Moki te whare
Ko Riki Te Mairaki Ellison te Wharekai
Ko Hone Wetere te Whare Karakia

Ko Makawhiua rāua ko Tākitimu ngā waka
Ko Maungatere te maunga
Ko Ngā Kohatu Whakarekareka o Tamatea-pokai-whenua te puke
Ko Rakahuri te Awa
Ko Ngāi Tūāhuriri te hapū
Ko Tuahiwi te marae
Ko Maahunui II te Wharenui
Ko St Stephen te Whare Karakia
Ko Uruao te waka
Ko Tuhua te maunga
Ko Arahura te awa
Ko Poutini te Moana
Ko Poutini te taniwha
Ko Ngāti Waewae rāua ko Ngāti Wairangi kā hapū
Ko Pounamu te taonga
Ko Tūhuru te whare
Ko Papakura te Wharekai
Ko Araiteuru, Tākitimu, Uruao kā waka
Ko Te Taari Te Kaumira, Kā Tapuwae o Urihia, Uretāne kā mauka
Ko Waihao te awa
Ko Wainono te roto
Ko Wainono to moana
Ko Ngāti Hateatea, Ngāi Taoka, Te Aitaka a Tapuiti, Kāti Huirapa kā hapū

Ko Tākitimu, Uruaokapuarangi, Horouta ngā waka
Ko Tākitimu te maunga
Ko Oreti rāua ko Waihopai ngā awa
Ko Te Ara a Kewa te moana
Ko Kāti Huirapa, Ngai Te Ruahikihiki, Ngai Tūāhuriri, Ngai Te Rakiamoa, Ngai Te Atawhuia ngā hapū
Ko Te Rakitauneke te whare
Ko Hine o Te Iwi te wharekai
Ko Uruao te waka
Ko Te Upoko o Tahumatā te mauka
Ko Ōkana te aua
Ko Wairewa te roto
Ko Ngāti Irakehu rāua ko Ngāti Makō kā hapū
Ko Wairewa te marae
Ko Makō te whare tipuna
Ko Te Rōpūake te whare kai

Ko Tākitimu rāua ko Uruao ngā waka
Ko Ōparure te maunga
Ko Hoka-nui, Kowhaka-ruru rāua ko Tarahau-kapiti ngā puke
Ko Mataura te awa
Ko Te Au-nui Pihapiha Kanakana te rere
Ko Ara a Kiwa te moana
Ko Maruawai te whenua
Ko Ō Te Ika Rama te marae

Ko Uruao, Te Waka a Raki, Te Wakahuruhurumanu, Te Waka o Aoraki kā waka
Ko Rākaihautū te tipuna
Ko Te Anau te Roto
Ko Waitaha te Iwi.

Ko Katirakai rāua ko Katihinekato kā hapū
Ko Kāti Mamoe te iwi.

Ko Takitimu te waka
Ko Tangitū ki te moana
Ko Maungaharuru ki uta
Ko Mōhaka te awa
Ko Raupunga rāua ko Waipapa a iwi ngā marae
I te taha o Ngāti Kura, ko Waihua te Marae
I te taha o Ngāti Paroa, ko Putere te Marae
Ko Ngāti Kape Kape, Ngāti Puraro, Ngāti Kura, Ngāti Paroa ngā hapū.
Ko Ngāti Pāhauwera te iwi

Ko Tainui te waka
Ko Pukeone rāua Ko Tuao Wharepapa ngā maunga
Ko Motueka te awa
Ko Ngāti Rārua te Iwi
Ko Niho te tipuna.

Ko Te Arawa te waka
Ko Waipa te awa
Ko Tongariro te maunga
Ko Rotoaira te moana
Ko Hikairo ki Te Rena, Ko Papakai ki Tongariro, Ko Otukou ki Huimako ngā marae
Ko Ngāti Taiuru te hapū
Ko Ngāti Hikairo te Iwi

Ko Pāpākai te marae
Ko Rākeipoho te whare
Ko Papakai, Wairehu ngā awa
Ko Rotoaira te Roto

Ko Otūkou te marae
Ko Okahukura te Whare
Ko Mangatipua, Wairehu ngā Awa
Ko Rotoaira te Roto

Ko Hauāuru te waka
Ko Tongariro te maunga
Ko Taupo Nui a Tia te Roto
Ko Tumakaurangi te whare
Ko Te Puawaitanga o Ngā Tumunako te wharekai
Ko Ngāti Tamakopiri te hapū
Ko Tūwharetoa te iwi

Ko Takitimu te waka
Ko Ruahine te Pae Maunga
Ko Rangitīkei te awa
Ko Taahuhu te marae
Te Ruku a Te Kawau te whare nui
Ko Ngāti Hauiti te iwi
Ko Ngāti Haukaha te hapū

Ko Takitimu te waka
Ko Aorangi te maunga
Ko Moawhango (Rahi) te awa
Ko Moawhango te marae
Ko Whitikaupeka te whare karakia
Ko Whitikaupeka te whare tupuna
Ko Terina te Whare Kai
Ko Ngāti Whitikaupeka te iwi

---

BACKGROUND

WAI 262 was brought to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1991. Part of that claim was for Māori cultural rights to genetic data of plants. Other species were not directly mentioned in the claim. WAI 262 was innovative for the time, but technology has rapidly grown in the science area over the past decade. WAI262 did not directly seek genetic ownership and recognition of the living and dead: Māori humans, endemic native species and introduced by Māori, species. Instead, WAI 262 offered a limited scope of what a Taonga Species was, relying on whānau, hapū and Iwi to decide what was a Taonga Species with several different guidelines to prove that a species is taonga, with no regard to whakapapa and mauri.

With the past 240 years of colonisation and bio prospecting, the tribunal’s definition could be used (intentionally or unintentionally) as another colonial tool to assist the removal of traditional knowledge from Māori, a weapon that could be used to say if the knowledge is not in the database, then it does not exist.

We already know that much Māori knowledge has been lost due to successful cultural assimilation lead government initiatives: Assimilation proceeds on the assumption that the integration and assimilation of the minority into the dominant majority culture is always a positive step. “Such a social philosophy is itself based upon further judgement that the dominant culture is superior to the minority culture” (Marsden & Royal, 2003, p. 133). Often minority voices and beliefs are termed by the establishment as radical, eccentric, ignorant, or even criminal to justify their oppressive assimilationist polices.

---

INTRODUCTION

In te Ao Māori, when a person has a responsibility for whakapapa (genealogy), it is essential that the person with the responsibility is well versed in their own whakapapa. The more whakapapa connections a person can recite, the more relationships and networks that person can claim. Genetic data contains all biological data about the living specimen it was extracted from, hence it is a whakapapa.

This guideline opens with an analysis of the authors own significant and connecting pepeha[1] and marae (tribal lands and meeting house). The full pepeha can be read in the thesis. This interconnecting process is about identifying who he is, in order to sustain a Māori genetic and genomic research framework for researchers and others. The key perspective is, those who work with Māori genetic data need to understand and share their own identity, their own tikanga (customs) in order to have access, privilege, to work with Māori genetic data.

Māori genetic data is a living literary form connected to Māori and world Indigenous Knowledge systems with an abundance of knowledge to retrieve identity of place, personality, and history, to foster diverse connectivity of Māori genetic data to awaken teaching and learning passion; a vision for career opportunities and future study (Black et al., 2014).

Genetic Māori Data will grow whānau, hapū and iwi research communities and will be a major contributor to advance critical Māori scholarship as the voice of Genetic Māori Data is a forward-thinking investment strategy as it is about heritage, life aspirations, a life philosophy.

Once genomes of Taonga Species have been sequenced, Māori will have the potential ability to invest in new mātauranga Māori with the genetic data that will be used for a range of investment strategies in individuals, whānau, hapū, Iwi and Māori organisations. New partnerships with researchers will unfold unlimited benefits to everyone while supporting Māori spiritual and physical wellbeing.

Māori Genetic Data for the purposes of this framework is genetic data that is held by Māori (collectively or individually), extracted from a Taonga Species, contains, or represents any Māori (collectively or individually) biological material that has whakapapa to a Māori deity, whether it is still in its biological state or has been altered in any way including anonymised or digitised.

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from your mother, who derived it from her mother and so on back to the first mother of all Māori human beings (Hineahuone). “Geneticists have concluded by analysing Mitochondria DNA, that every person on earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago” (Cann, Stoneking, & Wilson, 1987). From a Māori perspective, this verifies that all Māori descendants are of Hineahuone.

With the human anatomy of a Māori individual, that individual is connected to Māori whakapapa which will include a connection to ancestors and deity such as Hineahuone. Therefore, the aspect of intergenerational transmission of DNA through Māori ancestry is intrinsically connected to that part of the Māori world view which has a whakapapa connection. Adding to whakapapa is tikanga. Tikanga is a powerful combined analogy of identity and cultural history engendering reflection, connection, learning and personal growth

This framework focuses on sustaining in the first instances, core Māori research resolve and excellence enabling an investigation, analysis and interpretation into, and with Māori Genetic samples. In so doing, the combined ownership for this Māori Genetic samples will reside with Māori.

There are key fundamental tikanga (customary), cultural, and intellectual expectations and property rights to support the inalienable rights of Māori and Indigenous people across the globe. Many of these interdisciplinary customary rights are explored and presented in this framework. By building upon these customary evidence-based platforms; will prove Māori have the right to protect and control the dissemination of Māori DNA, instilled with genomic ownership rights.  This is based on cultural and intellectual property rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Aotearoa/New Zealand and Indigenous people across the globe.

---

RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

Since the first colonial settlers arrived on the shores of New Zealand, Māori were taught to ignore their own epistemologies, cosmologies, and other knowledge systems in favour of a western religion and Euro centric belief systems that eradicated morals and ownership values. This resulted in the loss of significant amounts of traditional knowledge, communal living and being protectors of knowledge and nature in favour of individual property ownership. From the years 1904 to 1967 as one of the many successful government assimilation legislations, the Tohunga Suppression Act made it illegal to practice and use traditional knowledge. The results have seen significant amounts of experience, knowledge and scholarship values erased.

Numerous generations of families and individuals either lost knowledge or were institutionalised into not sharing that knowledge to the detriment of Māori. Tohuka (expert in natural lore and genealogy) of Ngāi Tahu Tiramōrehu stated that: “our ritual, that of the Māori of this land was abandoned since the coming of the faith resulting in Ngāi Tahu ignoring all these beliefs of their ancestors, however, there are many beliefs of our ancestors which can never be collected, there are so many” (Tiramōrehu, Van Ballekom, & Harlow, 1987, p. 33). This was not just confined to the South Island of New Zealand. Elsdon Best early in the 19^th century expressed his concerns “the old men of Tūhoe will assert that the greatest aitua (disaster) of modern times was their forsaking the ancient beliefs, religion, customs, tapu, etc., of their race and the adaption of those of the white man. Hence the degeneration, lack of vitality and lessoned numbers of the Māori people.” (Best, 1972, p. 1014).

The literature reviewed at the start of undertaking this research showed four clear overlapping themes that cover all aspects of Māori ethics with gene research. The key themes identified are: Intellectual Property Rights, Tikanga Māori, Data Sovereignty and sciences. Therefore, it was identified that the primary interviewees would need to have experience, knowledge, and expertise with at least one of the key themes. The Māori interviewees in addition have expertise and be well versed in tikanga and be respected leaders in their area, discipline.

Increasingly in academia, research providers and local authorities are seeking traditional Māori knowledge to be shared, forcing Māori to take individual ownership of the traditional communally protected knowledge, and giving government and academia licence to use and own that communal knowledge. This framework has chosen to ignore those Eurocentric values, and by using Kaupapa Māori research methodologies and principles, recognise that traditional knowledge is communally protected for the next generation, so it can be used to ensure holistic health of Māori Peoples.

The research for the framework heavily utilised a Kaupapa Māori research approach utilising the five Kaupapa Māori principles by (Pihama, Cram, & Walker, 2002):

1. Kaupapa Māori research gives full recognition to Māori cultural values and systems
2. Kaupapa Māori research is a strategic position that challenges dominant Pākehā constructions of research
3. Kaupapa Māori research determines the assumptions, values, key ideas, and priorities of research
4. Kaupapa Māori research ensures that Māori maintain conceptual, methodological, and interpretive control over the research
5. Kaupapa Māori research is a philosophy that guides Māori research and ensures that Tikanga Māori will be followed during the research process.

Furthermore, the core research direction utilised the following Kāti Huikai, Kāi Tūtehuarewa and Kāi Tūhaitara hapū principles ensuring that the research was completed in an Indigenous manner and not a western construct giving both the researcher and interview participants mana.

6. Rakatirataka – Our leaders must be strong and act to develop self-determination for the Rūnaka. This has been exercised in the research by respecting both academia and traditional Māori values.
7. Manaakitaka – We must care about our people and have empathy and respect for others’ mana. At all times, the mana of participants, colleagues and the Wānanga have been treated with respect and compassion.
8. Mātauraka – We must bring confident knowledge and application of expertise towards the outcomes of the Rūnaka. Expert individuals were identified and engaged with using my own mātauraka and to seek out their mātauraka.
9. Kaitiakitaka – We must work actively to protect environment, knowledge, culture, language, and resources important to the Rūnaka for future generations. A Māori world view code of ethics that will guide researchers, Māori, whānau, hapū and Iwi to be kaitiaki of their genetic data.
10. Whakapapa – We must understand and acknowledge the interconnectedness of people, place, and environment. We also acknowledge whakapapa as the reason to ensure unity of purpose and outcomes for the Rūnaka. This research has identified that genetic data is whakapapa and within the research is the value of interconnectedness of Te Ao Māori whakapapa from the individual to the group, to non-human beings and then to atua.
11. Tikaka – We must maintain a high degree of personal integrity aligned to the Rūnaka’s cultural protocols, understand the ever-evolving nature of tikaka and do what is right. Evolving tikaka was identified and with manaakitaka was revived and discussed.
12. Whanaukataka – We must have two-way connectivity and investment in all relationships important to the Rūnaka. Whanaukataka exercised by exploring both primary and secondary sources and respecting the many knowledge holders and their interconnectedness to Te Ao Māori and mātauraka.

---

LITERATURE REVIEWS OF CURRENT ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR WORKING WITH MĀORI GENETIC SAMPLES

This section discusses and critiques three ethical guidelines and frameworks that have been developed in New Zealand in relation to genetic and genomic research of Māori human beings’ biological samples: Te Ara Tika (Hudson, Health Research Council of New, & Pūtaiora Writing, 2010); He Tangata Kei Tua (Hudson, Beaton, et al., 2016a) and Te Mata Ira (Hudson, Russell, et al., 2016).

The three guidelines are widely referenced by non-Māori academics, but they create a deficit of tikanga Māori with genetic and genomic research, and confusion among tikanga Māori practitioners. The frameworks contain some important high-level principals, but no information about how to implement the suggestions or why there is a need for some of the tikanga. This review therefore is essential, as it will create the justification for this framework as a new body of knowledge.

To assess how useful the three frameworks are to researchers who work with Māori genetic data, a number of interviews were conducted with both Māori and non-Māori scientists who have read one, two or all of the frameworks. In addition to interviews, a survey of New Zealand Universities: Intellectual Property Policies, Research Ethics with Human Beings and Māori, Genetic Research policies were analysed for any input or guidance of any of the three frameworks including from: Victoria University [2], Lincoln University [3], Auckland University[4], Massey University[5], University of Canterbury[6] and Otago University[7].

In addition to the University policies, 74 human biological research consent forms from three Universities “University of Canterbury, University of Otago, The University of Auckland”, and the Canterbury District Health Board were analysed for references and principals from the three frameworks.

There was no proof that any of the university policies included any reference, principles, or guidelines from the three frameworks. In 73 of the 74 consent forms, there was no reference of any information from the three frameworks. Only one consent form had some principles of the three frameworks, but that consent form lacked complete protection for Māori participants.

 

Te Ara Tika / He Tangata Kei Tua/ Te Mata Ira Framework

Te Ara Tika Guidelines states it “is a framework for researchers and ethics committee members to support researchers to make ethical decisions with Māori human gene research”. It outlines a framework for addressing Māori ethical issues within the context of decision-making by ethics committees by bringing together various strands connecting tikanga Māori, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori research ethics, and health research context in a way that could be understood and applied in a practical manner by researchers and ethics committees” (Hudson, Beaton, et al., 2016, p. 2).

He Tangata Kei Tua: Guidelines for Biobanking with Māori states it “is a guideline that outlines a framework for addressing Māori ethical issues within the context of biobanking with Māori tissue and to describe the cultural foundation informing ethical approaches to biobanking, to inform decision-making around ethical issues when conducting biobanking with Māori tissue and outline best practice approaches for addressing Māori ethical concerns”.

Te Mata Ira Framework, the authors claim is “designed to build on the guidance provided by Te Ara Tika because the Māori ethical issues identified in that document are relevant to all research, including genomic research”. Furthermore, the authors claim that “the framework aligns with the key principles of Te Ara Tika and considers their application to genomic research from consultation to research and post-project transformation” (Hudson, Russell, et al., 2016, p. 4). “It is the cultural foundation informing ethical approaches to genomics; to inform decision-making around ethical issues when conducting genomic research with Māori; and outline best practice approaches for addressing Māori and ethical concerns”.

This review will focus on four primary areas to ascertain what knowledge is missing from the literature:

1. How relevant are the publications in 2022, considering they are now between six and twelve years and old and discuss ethics in with rapidly evolving sciences and technologies that have changed exponentially in just the past few years.
2. What Kaupapa Māori research and methodologies were applied by the researchers and the extensiveness of the literature that was consulted in creating the frameworks.
3. If and how a Te Ao Māori (Māori world view) perspective is applied and how that will likely be understood by Māori language speakers and Māori cultural practitioners.
4. What national and international Indigenous resources and instruments that were available at the respected publication dates were utilised.

Relevance of the Literature in 2020

Gene and Genome technologies are now significantly more accessible and economic to both scientists, amateur DNA researchers and lay people than they were at the dawn of 2010 when Te Ara Tika was published. “Over the past decade, increasing resources have been poured into DNA-based research in most modern industrial countries” (Kolopenuk, 2020). For these reasons, the relevance of aging Indigenous scientific frameworks must be considered against the western scientific developments.

In 2010, geneticists were still grappling with how to make human genome sequencing a more widespread and affordable reality. Illumina advertised a genome sequencing service that cost $50,000 per person. By 2012 Direct to Consumer DNA testing became mainstream when Ancestry.com launches their new AncestryDNA Service. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that naturally occurring DNA cannot be patented in 2013. “In 2019 Veritas Genetics were offering full genome sequences for less than $600” (Grant, 2019). Now anyone can purchase DIY CRISPR genomic sequencing kits online and spend a few hundred dollars to have their DNA profile matched with direct to consumer services with a high risk to personal and family privacy” (Hendricks-Sturrup & Lu, 2019).

Te Mata Ira and He Tangata Kei Tua do not consider the access to self-genome testing and the increase of corporates who offer DNA testing that has become popular, economical, and easy to access. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing was also not available in 2010.

“By 2019, more than 26 million people — more people than in all of Australia — have shared their DNA with one of the four leading ancestry and health databases, allowing researchers to extrapolate data on virtually all Americans and raising some serious privacy concerns, according to the MIT Technology Review” (Bursztynsky, 2019). Ancestry.com claimed that “more than 15 million customers have received DNA results from them in 2019” (Ancestry.Com, 2019).

The series of frameworks offer no considerations of current or emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, racial profiling, low costs to purchase self-checking DNA tests, genetic modification, Gene Drives, online DNA web sites, Māori data sovereignty issues.

Specific issues missing from all of the publications, that largely impact Māori ; DNA and profiling, Phenotyping, familial searching, abandoned samples, or bias by the New Zealand Police with taking samples from a disproportionately higher amount of Māori than non-Māori by the New Zealand Police and other authorities (The Law Commission, 2018); the rise of Māori DNA being researched and stored in digital format by overseas researchers.

Consultation and Research

Within academia and the research world it is vitally important to be aware of all of the available literature and to cite references to give your work credibility, the ability for the reader to fact check your statements and to give credibility and authority to your claims. Without referencing other literature, the publications become personal opinions that cannot be substantiated. Moreover, in Te Ao Māori, no natural Māori object can exist without a whakapapa (genealogy).

Te Ara Tika provides no reference page, only references further reading in footnotes. Overall, there is only one quote from an external source used in Te Ara Tika. He Tangata Kei Tua and Te Mata Ira share the same references. Of the seventeen references listed in the three frameworks, two are not used at all and two are by the authors referencing themselves.

Of the remaining thirteen references, six are used only once in one general sentence, and three in another general statement of no substance. The remaining references are included as examples of projects. Overall, one external author was cited in all three frameworks.

All three publications have omitted the volumes of Māori public feedback to The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification public consultation. The feedback included a lengthy consultation process with numerous participants (Eichelbaum, 2001). The three frameworks ignore other academic research exploring a Māori view of Genetic Modification to the Royal Commission where a total of 94 individuals from multiple Iwi and regions were interviewed using kaupapa Māori research methodologies to gain results are also excluded (Leonie Pihama, Southey, & Tiakiwai, 2015). Many other consultations that Māori have made submissions on genetic issues to the Crown in the years: 1992, 1994 and 1999 have also been excluded (Hutchings & Reynolds, 2005).

Public consultations by Māori for Māori into The Royal Commission of Genetic modification in New Zealand in 2000 identified five primary tikanga (Customs): Wairua, Mauri, Tapu, Kaitiakitanga, Whakapapa (Cram, Pihama, & Barbara, 2000). Other consultations stated that the main tikanga of biotechnology are kaitiakitanga, wairua and whakapapa (Hutchings, 2004). This is consistent with other researcher’s findings including (Beaton et al., 2017); (Hutchings, 2004b); (Mead, 1996); (Mead, 1998); (Mead, 2016b); (Pihama et al., 2015) & (Cram et al., 2000). Despite these key tikanga being identified by numerous national consultations with Māori, the authors of the series of frameworks have self-identified over 40 tikanga and self-defined those tikanga with specialised meanings.

Chapter Two of the Waitangi Tribunal Wai 262 report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, focused on issues relating to genetic and biological resources in Taonga Species. Key sections of the chapter address topics such as: Te Ao Māori (Māori Word view) and Taonga Species (Species of cultural significance); Te Ao Pākehā (Non-Māori world view) and Research Science; Bioprospecting, Genetic Modification, and Intellectual Property; the Rights of Kaitiaki (Māori Guardian) in Taonga Species; and recommended reforms (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011).

Despite this, none of this is referenced in any of the three frameworks, nor was the tribunal report itself listed or used as a resource. Neither were conceptual frameworks that had been previously developed to assess the impact of genetics with Māori, in relation to specific biotechnologies ranging from genetically modified organisms to preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), including but not limited to (Durie, 2005); (Guyatt, McMeeking, & Tipene-Matua, 2006); (Pihama, 2001).

Te Ara Tika, as the foundation framework, in the introduction states it is “a framework for addressing Māori ethical issues within the context of decision-making by ethics committee members. It draws on a foundation of tikanga Māori (Māori protocols and practices)” (Hudson et al., 2010, p. 1). Te Ara Tika, He Tangata Kei Tua and Te Mata Ira show no proof in the writings, nor in the research and the style of writing that any kaupapa Māori (Māori Framework) methodologies were applied in their research. Te Ara Tika does list seven frameworks and in Appendix B, but no further information is provided and no kaupapa Māori frameworks and methodologies are referenced.

Consultation with selected people to seek their approval and endorsement has been a common issue with genetic research, and in fact with Māori consultations by government. “Selbourne Biological Services consulted only five individuals of a hapū and sought final approval by depicting these five people as consultation with iwi” (Mead, 1997).

The series of publications have no specific references, no whakapapa (sources) identifying the research participants, nor do the authors introduce themselves and do not identify their iwi (tribal) affiliations in direct contrast to tikanga (Māori customs) and te Ao Māori (Māori world view).

In te Ao Māori, whakapapa (genealogy) interconnects everything from the living to the dead, to all-natural objects and to everything Māori, as a people participate in within life. It is polite and common that Māori identify themselves when in person and with their writings. Researchers who cannot or do not identify the whakapapa (genealogy) of their sources or their own whakapapa have no authority to speak about or make recommendations about taonga (valuable information) and whakapapa (genealogy). This is equally applicable on the marae as it is anywhere in society that whakapapa Māori (Māori genealogy) is discussed.

Te Ara Tika provides no definition of what an Iwi (tribal) consultation is. Some of the groups referenced as having been consulted in a footnote are incorrectly called iwi as opposed to hapū (sub clan) or whānau (family). By consulting some hapū ignores a Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview) perspective of whakapapa and Māori societal structure. Further investigation of the research participants show that those interviewed appear to whakapapa directly to the researchers which makes the research out-puts conflicted as they may not be neutral or were obtained by casual conversations.

Te Ara Tika states that “Southern Rūnaka o Ngāi Tahu were consulted”. This term ‘Rūnaka’ is ambiguous and does not clearly state who was involved. A Rūnaka is a modern corporate structure that merged hapū into a region as part of the Treaty negotiations and settlement. Each rūnaka have their own tikanga and kawa (local protocols). It is not clear who ‘Southern Rūnaka’ are, whether they are south of Kaikōura in the northern most Ngāi Tahu Rūnaka or south of Ōraka Aparima the third southernmost rūnaka and how many people were and using what kawa and tikanga. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Tribal Corporation) estimate that less than ten percent of people with whakapapa to a rūnanga participate with their own rūnanga. “It is only the most influential whānau (families) who are participants at rūnanga whose voice and decisions are heard” (Prendergast-Tarena, 2015).

Te Ao Māori Perspectives

This section analyses and compares the myriad of tikanga terms and other Māori language sayings to compare how accurate and understandable they will likely be with Māori language speakers and Māori communities. Terms in the publications are cross referenced using authoritative Māori dictionaries, tikanga and mātauranga (knowledge) Māori literature.

Comparative analysis of Tikanga terms and their definitions

Mead (2016) states “the underlying principle of tikanga is cosmology”. “The primary indigenous reference for Māori values and ethics are the creation stories which highlight specific relationships deemed fundamental to the sustainability of life” and specifically for research with genetic data (Roberts et al., 2004). Cooper (2012) introduces a new Māori framework using traditional Māori stories and cosmology, in particular the story of Māui and Tāwhaki as an analysis of science shortfalls for Māori and a way to address them.

Te Ara Tika does not include any Māori cosmology, despite stating the literature is based on Te Ao Māori and tikanga. The notion of creation stories to explain concepts of tikanga is mentioned only once, but not applied or explained in He Tangata Kei Tua (Hudson, Russell, et al., 2016, p. 2). No further explanation or cosmology stories, nor how cosmology relates to genomics appears in the series.

All three frameworks contain a glossary with the following disclaimer “Disclaimer: Many of the descriptions used in this glossary are specific interpretations for the purposes of this document and do not denote the fullness of meaning normally associated with the word or term (Hudson, Beaton, et al., 2016a, 2016b; Hudson et al., 2010)”. Such a disclaimer prevents Māori language speakers and Māori cultural practitioners from being able to interpret the meanings and terms if applied by ethical researchers. It is reminiscent of the different texts of Te Tiriti o Waitangi with the Treaty of Waitangi. It will furthermore complicate the Māori perspectives and will only create confusion and mistrust by Māori to the researchers when they are using Māori terms that are not properly understood or misquoted.

“From early missionary time onwards, words referring to Māori epistemology and epistemological ideas were translated with English words that refer to Western religious beliefs and practices – atua as ‘god (rather than powerful ancestor) and wairua as ‘spirit’ (rather than a person’s immaterial being); tapu as ‘sacred’, rather than ancestral presence; noa as ‘profane’, instead of ancestral absence’; tohunga as priest rather than expert; karakia as ‘prayer’, instead of chant; and Tangaroa, Tāne, Tāwhiri-mātea as the ‘gods’ of the sea, forest, and winds, instead of these ancestral beings in all of their power” (Salmond, 2017).

The following table analyses ten of the tikanga which represent about one quarter of the terms used in the glossaries to use as an example of the usage and obfuscation of the tikanga terms.

The following list analyses ten of the tikanga which represent about one quarter of the terms used in the glossaries to use as an example of the usage and obfuscation of the tikanga terms.

Aroha
“Faith and Care: (Hudson et al., 2010, p. 6).

Benton 2013 states that “This word conveys the ideas of overwhelming feeling, pity, affectionate and passionate yearning, personal warmth towards another, compassion and empath, originally especially in the context of strong bonds to people and places. Its meaning was considerably widened (and to some extent diluted) after contact with Christianity and Euro-American influences, to also embrace charity in a more universal sense and romantic love of all kinds” (Richard Benton et al., 2013).
2. Williams Māori Dictionary has the following descriptions: “Love, yearning; Pity, compassion; Affectionate regard; Feel love or pity; Show approval” (H. W. Williams, 1957).

Kaitiakitanga and Kaitiaki
“Brave, competent and capable, best practice, guardian/advocate” (Hudson et al., 2010); (Hudson, Beaton, et al., 2016a, p. 26); (Hudson, Beaton, et al., 2016b, p. 25).

In recent times, Kaitiaki has become a common term used by bureaucrats in environmental policies and in legislation. Upoko of Ngāi Tahu Rūnanga Ngāi Tūāhuriri states that “Kaitiaki is a term used with such irregularity that it is now meaningless. Today, kaitiaki is a term used by Māori and Pākehā bureaucrats as a gap-filler to mean everything and yet nothing” (Tau, 2017, p. 15). Benton states that “the modern usage of the word has come to encapsulate an emerging ethic of guardianship or trusteeship especially over natural resources” (Benton et al., 2013).
2. Barlow states that “Kaitiaki or guardian are left behind by deceased ancestors to watch over their descendants and to protect sacred places”.  Kaitiaki are also messengers and a means of communication between the spirit realm and the human world. Kaitiaki can be in the form of birds, insects, animals, and fish. Many kaumātua act as guardians of the sea, rivers, lands, forests, family and marae” (Barlow, 1991, p. 41).
3. The term tiaki, whilst its basic meaning is ‘to guard’ has other closely related meanings depending on the context. Tiaki may therefore also mean, to keep, to preserve, to conserve, to foster, to protect, to shelter, to keep watch over.
4. The prefix kai with a verb denotes the agent of the act. A kaitiaki is a guardian, keeper, preserver, conservator, foster-parent, protector.  The suffix tanga, when added to the noun, transforms the term to mean guardianship, preservation, conservation, fostering, protecting, sheltering.
5. Kaitiakitanga is defined in the Resource Management Act as “guardianship and/or stewardship. Stewardship is not an appropriate definition since the original English meaning of Stewardship is ‘to guard someone else’s property’. Apart from having overtones of a master-servant relationship, ownership of property in the pre-contact period was a foreign concept. The closest idea to ownership was that of the private use of a limited number of personal things such as garments, combs, and weapons. Apart from this, all other use of land, waters, forests, fisheries were a communal and or Iwi right. All-natural resources, all life was birthed from Papatūānuku. Thus, the resources of the earth did not belong to man, but rather man belonged to the earth. Kaitiakitanga and Rangatiratanga are intimately linked” (Marsden & Henare, 1992).

Kawa
Primary values, principles (Hudson et al., 2010).

“A class of karakia, or ceremonies in connection with a new house or canoe, the birth of a child, a battle, etc”. (Williams, 1957). In addition to the ceremony Williams stated, “in modern usage, the term often indicates the protocol governing ceremonial conduct on a particular marae and in formal contacts between social groups”.

Rohe pōtae
Used to define the term Tribal area (Hudson et al., 2010).

The complete and correct term is ‘Te Rohe Pōtae’ which is best known as applying to the King Country. It was also used elsewhere to mean autonomous Māori land. “Te Rohe Pōtae o Tūhoe’ referred to Tūhoe tribal land beyond a confiscation line in the eastern Bay of Plenty in the late 1860s” in Tūranganui (Gisborne). Māori also spoke of the concept in the 1850s. The head is sacred to Māori, and the idea that the ‘pōtae’ (hat) “related to authority over land was derived from the “crown worn by Queen Victoria – one of the symbols of her authority” (Pollock, 2015).

Taonga
Resources (Hudson et al., 2010, p. 19).

“A socially or culturally valuable object, resource or technique, phenomenon or idea” (Benton et al., 2013, p. 396). 2. Refers to a “wide range of valuable possessions and attributes, concrete and abstract” (Biggs, 1989, p. 140).

Tapu
Restricted (Hudson et al., 2010, p. 4).

“A key concept in Polynesian philosophy and religion, denoting the intersection between the human and the divine. Used as a term to indicate states of restriction and prohibition whose violation, often included the death of the violator and others involved, directly or indirectly. “Its specific meanings include “sacred”, under ritual restriction, prohibited” (Benton et al., 2013, p. 404). 2. Under religious or superstitious “restriction; “Beyond one’s power, inaccessible; Sacred (mod); Ceremonial restriction, quality or condition of being subject to such restriction (Williams, 1971). 3. From a purely legal aspect, it suggests a contractual relationship has been made between the individual and deity.

Te Ao Māori
Māori world (Hudson et al., 2010).

“The Māori world view (te ao Māori) acknowledges the interconnectedness and interrelationship of all living & non-living things in the physical, psychological, theological, and spiritual realms.  2. Māori worldview lies at the very heart of Māori culture – touching, interacting with, and strongly influencing every aspect of the culture. This contributes to the Māori holistic view of the world and the Māori place in it” (M. o. Marsden & Royal, 2003, pp. 19,20). 3. “Māori beliefs, custom, and values are derived from a mixture of cosmogony, cosmology, mythology, religion, and anthropology” (Best, 1924b); (Buck, 1949); (Biggs & Barlow, 1990); (Marsden & Henare, 1992); (Mead, 2003)

Tohunga
cultural experts (Hudson, Beaton, et al., 2016a, p. 15).

1. “An expert in any branch of knowledge, religious or secular, and a skilled practitioner of an art or craft. It includes (but is not limited to) those whose function primarily ritual and priestly” (Benton, 2012, p. 434).2. Is often translated as ‘expert’. “Such use is wrong. Tohunga is the gerundive of tohu and means ‘a chosen one’ or appointed one” (Marsden & Royal, 2003, p. 14).

Whakapono
Faith (Hudson et al., 2010, p. 19).

The definition stated in He Ara Tika are scriptural translations from Paipera Tapu (Bible Society New Zealand, 2012). “Pono was consistently to convey the Hebrew ‘mn’ belief in adherence to an idea or set of principles and its derivatives, generally translated into English as ‘faithful, faithfulness, faith believe, truth” (Benton et al., 2013). 2. The traditional meaning of ‘pono’ is: “absolutely true; genuine; unfeigned” (Benton et al., 2013).

Analysis of Whakataukī

A whakataukī is also known synonymously as whakatauakī and pepeha.

“A whakataukī is a concise, formulaic saying, such as a proverb, aphorism, short karakia (prayer), or memorable, witty remark. It is used especially (but by no means exclusively) for sayings that encapsulate the boundaries or tribal group or region. By extension, this word can also be used as a general term for a “figure of speech, and as a verb can mean either to make such a remark, or to boast about some accomplishment, or intended action. A whakataukī is used to express customary ideas” (Benton et al., 2013).

Hirini Mead (2016) comments that “whakataukī are not merely historical relics. “Rather they constitute a communication with the ancestors. Through the medium of the words, it is possible to discover how they thought about life and its problems. Their advice is as valuable today as it was before”.

Sir Hirini Moko Mead further describes a whakataukī as “It’s a very succinct message which places a high value on a certain aspect of human behaviour. These are stated as universal truths that people need to be aware of, and that people need to use to guide their behaviour and also to guide their judgements about what to say and what not to say and what to do, and what not to do” (Mead, 2016a).

Sir Apirana Ngata emphasized the importance of using the correct version and context of a whakataukī to avoid misinterpretations and misunderstandings which are common with uninformed translations (Ngata, Buck, & Sorrenson, 1986).

Kia aroha ki a Tangaroa

This is translated by the authors of Te Ara Tika as “to be careful and aware of the potential dangers in the sea” (Hudson et al., 2010). Then it appears with a different translation in the glossary where it is defined as “In a traditional context, a person going fishing, or diving might be cautioned with the phrase ‘to be careful and aware of the potential dangers in the sea”.

The subject of the whakataukī is “Tangaroa”. Tangaroa is the deity of the sea/ocean and progenitor of fish (Mead & Grove, 2001). A more correct translation could read “Be respectful of the practices and knowledge of Tangaroa the god of the ocean and ensure you pray and offer thanks to Tangaroa”.

“Very great reverence is paid to Tangaroa by Māori when engaged in fishing, and on no account is cooked food allowed to be taken in the canoe at such times, and even old pipes are forbidden” (Gudgeon, 1905). It is custom to always say a karakia (prayer) to Tangaroa and Ikatere (Deity of fish) among other Māori deity when fishing and taking food from the ocean. It is also appropriate to offer back to Tangaroa some of the days catch. Strict observances are made by people who take fish from the ocean as to where they will shell and fillet the fish and place the leftovers. “Tangaroa will be angry and will not allow you to have a plentiful fishing trip if you eat or prepare food form the ocean too close to the ocean” (Edwards, 1990).

The most common and universal Māori word and root word for ‘ocean’ and ‘sea’ is moana (Biggs, 1981; Cormack, 1995; Moorfield, 2011; Ryan, 2012; Sinclair & Calman, 2012; Strickland & Fisheries, 1990; Tauroa, 2006; Tregear, 2014; Williams, 1975).

Tangaroa is the common Māori word for the Atua of the ocean and does not have any other definitions applied to the term (Moorfield, 2011; Tregear, 2014; Williams, 1992).

 

Kei tua i te awe mapara, he tangata ke. Mana e noho te ao nei—he ma

He Tangata kei ua translates this as “Who makes the decisions after consent has been given?”.

Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hīroa) translates and discusses the meaning of the whakataukī which differs greatly from the literature. The meaning is about the Māori population being interbred and losing their customs (Buck, 1949, p. 537). The whakataukī is not related to the definition provided by the authors of the literature.

 

Me ātahaere mā ngā ngaru, kei tōtohu i te aroha o Tangaroa

Te Mata Ira states this whakataukī that is used as a guiding principle and translates it as “Tread carefully in challenging waters”.

Combining the words āta and haere together is linguistically incorrect (Te Taura Whiri I te Reo Māori, 2012). Again, as in the previous example, the subject is Tangaroa the deity of the ocean and this is further reinforced by the use of the word “o” stating of a superior being. The whakataukī is confusing to understand and does not translate to the definition provided by the authors. A more appropriate whakataukī could have been found in Māori epistemology or in the authoritative Ngā Pēpeha o ngā Tipuna (Grove, 1985, pp. 89, 182, 381).

 

Kanohi ki kanohi

This whakataukī is referenced four times in Te Ara Tika, including in the Glossary. The only explanation provided is a direct translation “face to face”. The meaning of this whakataukī implies that if correct contact must be made then people should meet face to face, one on one, so that no misunderstandings, misconstruing, misinterpretations, misapprehensions, misconstructions can occur. This term is commonly used in everyday language by Māori language speakers. A more careful analysis of the statement is that it implies that “by taking the time and energy to arrange and travel to meet somebody you are showing the respect and homage that this person is worthy of your efforts” (Keegan, 2000).

 

Ira tangata as Taonga Species

Epistemology and Whakapapa Māori with many Iwi states that Māori human beings are the youngest of the children of Tāne Māhuta, the father of all the birds, insects, and all other living forest species. Tāne Māhuta also created the first human being with Hine Ahu-one. A Te Ao Māori perspective is that there is no difference with human and non-human species genetic materials as all species are closely related by whakapapa. Humans are the kaitiaki for all other species and all other species are the kaitiaki of human beings.

If Te Ara Tika, He Tangata Kei Tua and Te Mata Ira were based on Te Ao Māori and tikanga as they state, the ethical guidelines would be written for all species as one set of species cannot be separated from another with ethical consideration of Māori genetic and genomic research.

Traditional Māori knowledge has a story that reminds us of the dangers of ignoring or thinking that non-human species are not as important as human species.

“When Māui entered Hine-nui-i-te-po, he began to push harder, and the little kick his feet gave made his brothers laugh, and the birds joined in. If Māui had not been cruel to the Tītwaiwaka (Fantail/Rhipidura fuliginosa), Pakura (Swamp-Turkey/Porphyrio porphyrio), and other birds he might have conquered death, but his treatment of them had made these birds angry, and they did not obey his injunctions to keep well back but pressed up quite close. The fantail came fluttering over her face, and its long tail tickled her nose and she stirred just as the brothers laughed at Māui’s wriggles. This made the fantail giggle, and the other birds joined in, and the sound awakened her with such dire results to Māui that he never appeared again” (Tikao & Beattie, 1939, pp. 32-33).

 

Indigenous and International instruments

There are a number of specific treaties and declarations that bind Māori and the Crown to respect ethical considerations of biological research of Māori genetic data. There are also a number of international instruments that should be considered when writing about Māori ethics with genetic research.

 

He W[h]akaputanga

He W[h]akaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni is also known as the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand. “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” (Waitangi Tribunal, 2014, pp. 153-154).

He Whakaputanga is not mentioned in any of the frameworks, despite being a nationally significant declaration between Māori and the British (Waitangi Tribunal, 2014). He Whakaputanga offers a significant amount of protection and considerations that any researcher with Māori genetic materials should be aware of. “He Whakaputanga has often been considered no more than a minor prelude on the journey to the Treaty of Waitangi” (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).

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 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” (O’Malley & Harris, 2017).

Article I of He Whakaputanga state that the crown will honour its obligations to the tribes who were signatories and that these tribes would not be subjected to the current laws and bio piracy that Māori have endured for decades. While Article II gives the signatories the right to practice their own kaitiakitanga with Māori genetic data. It could have been possible that a Māori genetic data academy and a government office would already have been established to protect Māori. Article III is an agreement that a congress would meet in autumn each year to make laws and decisions that impact on Māori Peoples. This could have also led to a set of ethics being created and legislated to protect Māori.

 

Te Tiriti

“A treaty is a legally binding international instrument agreed to and signed by two or more sovereign nations. All parties to a treaty are required to abide by its provisions unless they abrogate” (formally withdraw from it) (Healy & Huygens, 2015).

Despite Te Ara Tika stating that the Treaty of Waitangi is one of the strands it is based upon, none of the framework’s references or discusses Te Tiriti. In direct contradiction of Te Ao Māori values and Tikanga, Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi is mentioned several times in Te Ara Tika with no meaningful discussion. Te Ara Tika ignores the Preamble and all three Articles of Te Tiriti and the three principles which are applicable to genetic and genomic research.

The Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document. The Treaty of Waitangi has texts: one in te reo Māori and one in English. The Māori text is referred to as Te Tiriti o Waitangi and is not an exact translation of the English text called The Treaty of Waitangi. These differences, coupled with the need to apply the Treaty in contemporary circumstances, led Parliament to refer to the principles of the Treaty in legislation, rather than to the Treaty texts. It is the principles, therefore, that the Courts have considered when interpreting legislative references to the Treaty (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2001)

Te Tiriti affords Māori the rights to protection of rangatiratanga (chiefly autonomy or authority over their own whenua (land) and taonga (treasured resources and possessions). Māori genetic resources are a taonga as it is the foundation of all whakapapa Māori. The frameworks use the term whakapapa, but it is used to describe relationships with researchers as opposed to its correct meaning of genealogy and the Māori view of genetic materials, therefore the rights of protection are not recognised.

It is essential that in order to recognise and discuss anything about Māori biological materials and their ownership that Te Tiriti be included and that these principles are observed and respected in good faith. By using the treaty principles will ensure that researchers, Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and Iwi engage in dialogue about Māori concerns and rights.

The Principle of Active protection
“The Tribunal has elaborated the principle of protection as part of its understanding of the exchange of sovereignty for the protection of rangatiratanga and has explicitly referred to the Crown’s obligation to protect Māori capacity to retain tribal authority over tribal affairs, and to live according to their cultural preferences. Later Tribunal reports also place emphasis on the Crown’s duty to protect Māori as a people, and as individuals, in addition to protecting their property and culture” (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2001). This is applicable to Māori and genetic and genomic research as this thesis will explain that DNA and any body fluids are tapu. There is a myriad of tikanga and traditional values that must be considered by researchers when accessing and analysing genetic and genomic research.

The Principle of Redress
“The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that it is a principle of partnership generally, and of the Treaty relationship in particular, that past wrongs give rise to a right of redress. This acknowledgment is in keeping with the fiduciary obligations inherent in the Treaty partnership” (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2001). This thesis explains why and how Māori genetic data is a taonga. Ethics and the Crown need to consider this within all legislation and decision-making processes that encompass Māori genetic data. While article III promises to Māori equal rights by the Crown. Currently Māori rights are being ignored and the fact that Māori genetic data is a taonga is also being ignored.

The Principle of Partnership
“Both the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal frequently refer to the concept of partnership to describe the relationship between the Crown and Māori. Partnership can be usefully regarded as an overarching tenet, from which other key principles have been derived” (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2001). This inherent right creates a new category of Māori rights, Genetic Data Sovereignty. Māori, whānau, hapū and Iwi have the right to govern and manage their own genetic data.

 

Other binding and guiding instruments to New Zealand

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) recognises Māori rights to their culture, beliefs, and ownership of genetic materials. It is a significant instrument protecting Māori rights and in addition to Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga with both documents forming the moral basis for any Māori ethics. Despite this, UNDRIP is mentioned in one sentence in Te Ara Tika, with a footnote to a web site. There is no explanation of how to integrate and understand the relevance of the Declaration with ethical research of Māori genetic materials.

Despite numerous Acts of Parliament that directly impact Māori and their genetic materials including Patents Act 1953; The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (HART) Act 2004; Guthrie Cards Public Health Bill 177-1 (2007), none of these were included or mentioned in any of the three frameworks.

International Instruments

The Pacific Islands Indigenous Peoples who have very similar cultures and beliefs to Māori and have been combatting unethical usage of their genetic materials by creating declarations regarding exploitation of gene research, gene modification and Intellectual Property Rights of gene research. The Pacific have more than 5 treaties and declarations that are not mentioned in the frameworks. See Appendix D.

Globally, there are more than 12 international Indigenous declarations to protect Indigenous genetic data from more than 150 Indigenous Peoples and countries. See Appendix E. None are included in the frameworks

The United Nations have 8 instruments. See Appendix F. The only instrument mentioned in the frameworks is the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005, which is mentioned but not explained. Te Ara Tika mentions several other international codes of ethics with no further explanation including Nuremburg Code 1947; Helsinki Declaration 1964; Belmont Report 1979; (Hudson et al., 2010, p. 1).

Conclusion

The three reviewed frameworks have highlighted the problem that mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) is neither defined nor taught as a discipline in mainstream education facilities. This creates and allows a free licence by researchers to create as they see fit. This new framework has identified and rectified the lack of Māori cultural beliefs and has provided solutions.

This review reinforces Te Maire Tau’s statement that “it is far better to anchor Māori students in Māori epistemology first before they apply extrinsic disciplines to it” (Tau, 2001, p. 72). The literature review also highlights the issues that the mainstream tertiary institutions need to ask themselves whether they can deal with Māori perceptions of the world adequately.

“It is naive to say in tertiary institutions that there is a ‘Māori dimension’ to history, education, geography, or any other discipline. To do so imposes one framework of knowledge upon another that orders itself differently” (Tau, 2001, p. 65).

“Mātauranga Māori needs to be accepted as having both a secular and a theological sense” (Te Maire Tau, 2001, p. 67). The fundamental principles of tikanga Māori are epistemology and cosmology. Despite this, Te Ara Tika, He Tangata Kei Tua and Te Mata Ira ignore Māori epistemologies reflecting the practices of the early missionaries to deflect traditional meanings. The reviewed frameworks have created confusion and obfuscation by discretely imposing western perspectives that ignore Māori customary beliefs and cultural values.

“You can never have a complete grasp of mātauranga Māori without a solid understanding of the language” (Tau, 2001, p. 68). The incorrect usage of the Māori language terms describing tikanga and whakataukī translations veil their true meanings and intentions reflecting ignorance of traditional Māori customary rights and knowledge contradicting a Te Ao Māori perspective. The impact of using incorrect Māori language could have irreversible damage to the multiple generations of people who are Māori language speakers including the Kura Kaupapa Māori schools who had just over 6,000 graduates in 2012 (Calman, 2012). Also, to the more than 152,000 Māori school children in mainstream schools who are leaning te reo Māori 2019 [8].

To present and research a taonga and a whakapapa requires decolonised research methodologies be applied to the research. Absent from all of the literature is any proof that any kaupapa Māori research methodologies and or frameworks were applied at any stage.

Despite New Zealand having two founding documents that were created between the Crown and Māori that set the genesis for any ethical discussions about Māori, the reviewed frameworks are wanting of any citations and references to those instruments. Despite there being a myriad of international, UN and Indigenous instruments that share Māori ethical beliefs and concerns, none were utilised in any of the three frameworks.

Te Ara Tika, He Tangata Kei Tua and Te Mata Ira do not represent a Te Ao Māori or tikanga Māori perspective. The result is that there is a large void of Te Ao Māori knowledge and mātauranga Māori that can be used to guide ethical decisions with Māori gene research and to guide the protection of Māori rights with Māori gene research that has not yet been published.

 

 

The development of guidelines for handling samples and specimens collected for research involving Maori Background & Research Involving Maori Guidelines for Disposal or Retention of Samples and Specimens

Found in ‘The New Zealand Medical Journal Vol 120 No 1264, pages 117-119’ in an article called ‘The development of guidelines for handling samples and specimens collected for research involving Maori [sic]’ (Cunningham et al., 2007). This literature is the basis for the internal ethical guidelines for Otago University Christchurch ‘Rangahau e pa ana ki te Maori [sic] Nga [sic] ahuatanga [sic] mo [sic] te whakakahore me te pupuri i nga [sic] tauira me nga [sic] kowaewae Research Involving Maori [sic] Guidelines for Disposal or Retention of Samples and Specimens (2007)[9]’.

The inclusion of [sic] is used as the ability to technically write macrons was widely available in 2007. As early as at least 2002, Te Taura Whiri I te Reo Māori – The Māori Language Commission has made public their ‘Māori Orthographic Conventions’ recommending they be observed by writers and editors of Māori language texts[10]. The Commission stated ‘it is essential for the survival of the language that a standardised written form be adopted by all those involved in the production of material in Māori, in order that a high-quality literary base may be built up as a resource for the Māori language learners of today and of the future. The primary recommendation that macrons are used to distinguish vowel length”.

These two guidelines being reviewed are still used as late as early 2022 at the University of Otago Christchurch with knowledge of the contents of this review provided in early 2021.

The introduction contains the following statement regarding the guidelines “to ensure consistency with cultural practices and beliefs and enhance the cultural safety of Māori participating in research”. The authors who are the Māori Research Committee are a mixture of Māori and non-Māori and non-researchers, despite the fact that the guidelines are about the sacred topic of whakapapa Māori. There is also no mention of any tikanga terms that were also being widely spoken about in Māori communities and academia at the time of publication (see previous review).

Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi

The second paragraph of the literature states that the University has a commitment to ‘The Treaty of Waitangi’. Noting that this is the English version that Māori did not debate, agree to or sign. The Waitangi Tribunal have stated that the Māori language version ‘Te Tiriti’ is the authoritative version that the tribunal follows. It is important to note here, that it is often stated by Māori academics and activists “The Treaty of Waitangi undermines ‘Te Tiriti’.

He Whakaputanga is not mentioned in the literature, despite being a constitutional document for Māori and The Crown. Though Ngāi Tahu did not sign He Whakaputanga, manawhenua of Otago University in Christchurch do have a special relationship with He Whakaputanga, with the English version of the flag being displayed in the marae in Tuahiwi.

The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples was signed in 1993, it is not mentioned in the literature.

As with the precious reviews, the many public consultations and literature of the time regarding Māori and biological samples are also not considered.

Consultation

The stated consultation process ignores the local iwi Ngāi Tahu and its governance. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Te Rūnanga), the tribal council, was established by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996 to be the tribal servant, protecting, and advancing the collective interests of the iwi. The 18 Papatipu Rūnanga have their own autonomy and form the tribal council. Within the Canterbury region alone, there are eight Papatipu Rūnanga who are identified as stakeholders in the University MOU.

The consultation that did occur was with a health committee that represents seven of the Papatipu Rūnanga in Canterbury, despite the literature being about whakapapa, tikanga and mātauranga.

A common issue with non-Māori and researchers is thinking that a person of Māori descent is an expert in all things Māori. The committee are health experts and representatives who were appointed to identify and work with the Christchurch District Health Board in regard to racism and inequities Ngāi Tahu whānau faced in the health system. They are not the knowledge holders of tikanga Māori and are not kaumātua. This form of consultation was discussed in the previous literature review.

The rūnanga are referenced as ‘rūnaka’ despite many of the rūnanga not using the dialectal identifier of replacing a ‘ng’ sound with ‘k’. Any meaningful engagement with Papatipu Rūnanga must occur with the rūnanga, not standalone committees.

Karakia

It is widely accepted and published by Indigenous Peoples Communities and Indigenous Scholars that Christianity has been the vehicle of colonisation for every Indigenous Peoples group. The late Professor Ranginui Walker stated “You cannot have colonisation without Christianity”. Dr Moana Jackson who spent a life time fighting against colonisation refused, in his pre-planned tangi, to have any Christian karakia.

For an in-depth analysis of what ‘Karakia’ is and the colonial practices that have made the term simply mean ‘prayer’ is in a paper I wrote titled ‘Karakia or cultural appropriation “[11].

Any part of the human body is sacred and contains whakapapa including a deity of each part of the human body. Anyone who handles whakapapa must respect Māori tikanga and associated traditional practices. Despite these broad Māori societal beliefs, the literature in review introduces recommendations that Christian practices and beliefs are used to dispose of biological samples.

Stating that a karakia would be performed over a sample would imply that Māori cultural values are being considered and practiced. Instead, the guidelines state that a karakia was composed by an Anglican Bishop and it is recited inside a chapel that was in attendance by a number of Māori Chaplains, and that the karakia was available to both Māori and non-Māori. The Mackenzie Cancer Research Group also state this ceremony is performed in the chapel[12].

This is essentially a Christian service using te Reo Māori and is another form of colonisation on the dead and individuals who provided their whakapapa (biological sample) to the University of Otago in Christchurch. This is disrespectful to any Māori who is not Christian. It ignores the fact that more than 2 million New Zealanders have no religion and that more than 56,000 Māori identify to Ringatu and Ratana[13], Hauhau etc.

Proposed Label

The guidelines state that a distinctive label should be used to identify the sample that is to have a karakia and disposal process. While the Medical Journal does not have the label, the University of Otago created internal guidelines does.

Section 5 of the internal Guidelines state:

“Sample to be disposed of with appropriate karakia (blessing): all tubes or containers holding these samples should be identified at the time of collection with a special identification sticker using the following design (this design may be copied from this document and pasted into a file for printing tube labels or the gif file for the design can be downloaded from: http://whakaahua.maori.org.nz/kowhai.htm or contact the Research Office).”

The web site is no longer available, but still viewable in the Web Archive [14].

The label being referenced in the guidelines is in black and white. Included below are both copies from the guidelines and the web site.

For anyone who is familiar with Māori art, the image is obviously a Puhoro design. On the original web site, it is also labelled a ‘Puhoro’ by the late artist Kamera Raharaha (Te Aupouri) who owned and managed the web site ‘maori.org.nz’.

 

Digitised and coloured label sourced from http://www.maori.org.nz/

 

Otago University Christchurch label

Traditionally puhoro was reserved for the warriors and leaders who had acquired speed, agility, and swiftness. The Puhoro is a tattoo from above the waist of usually a male, to his leg, including the buttocks. The Tohunga Suppression Act and colonial attitudes towards traditional Māori tattoos nearly saw the artform die out before experiencing a renaissance in the 1990s.

Apart from the cultural misappropriation, it is totally inappropriate for a male warrior’s buttocks to be associated with a biological sample that is intended to assist others live better lives and contribute their sacred sample to health research. Showing of the buttocks in Māori culture is a sign of disrespect to the person watching.

The label which was first published in A. H. Mc Lintock (Ed.). (1966). An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand has a whakapapa to Te Tai Tokerau and likely from Te Aupouri. This leads to further cultural appropriation and offence to the Iwi of Te Tai Tokerau as none of the authors whakapapa to Te Tai Tokerau.

Conclusion

Inadequate Māori cultural skills within the research team, lack of consultation and non-Māori on the Māori Research Committee likely contributed to a number of key flaws in the two guidelines.

The guidelines are not Māori culture but Christian guidelines and ceremonies that use an inappropriate and appropriated Māori image and some usage of the Māori language.

It is likely such behaviour and practices will both cement the deep-rooted mistrust with health professionals and researchers, or it could create new mistrust with researchers and health professionals.

Any research about Māori biological samples must be done in a culturally sensitive and trustworthy manner with Māori who are cultural practitioners leading the design and decision-making process.

---

 

INDIGENISING DNA

Indigenising western concepts is to alter concepts so as to make it fit in with the local culture. Pre-colonial Māori knowledge was shared through many different mediums, such as pūrākau (stories), karakia (prayer), waiata (song), and “inscribed into whakairo (carvings) and raranga (woven patterns), that adorned waka (canoe), wharenui (meeting houses) and kākahu (clothes). Tā moko (tattoo) was a method of etching whakapapa (genealogy) directly onto the face of the wearer. In doing so, a face etched with tā moko expressed the story of the wearer’s life, their whakapapa, accomplishments, and triumphs as well as their status within their hapū” (Deana Walker, 2019). In the same manner as Māori shared knowledge pre-colonial times and now, this section will identify three Māori concepts to describe genetics and genomics.

Ruatau

The interwoven form of the DNA structure is well known today. Double helix is the description of the structure of a DNA molecule. A DNA molecule consists of two strands that wind around each other like a twisted ladder. Each strand has a backbone made of alternating groups of sugar (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups. Attached to each sugar is one of four bases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), or thymine (T). The two strands are held together by bonds between the bases, adenine forming a base pair with thymine, and cytosine forming a base pair with guanine.

WAI 262 Claimant witness Mana Cracknell spoke of te ruatau, a dual helix formation, sometimes seen in kōwhaiwhai patterns, that represents the interwoven nature of different forms of knowledge (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011b, p. 80). The ruatau in weaving is the symbolic symbol of the atua Ruatau. In traditional knowledge among some Iwi, Rehua and Ruatau are two of the twelve whatukura or male attendants in the Māori spirit worlds. There were also twelve female attendants called Māreikura. The whatukura were messengers of Io, while the Māreikura greet the dead spirits when they enter the home of Io in the 12^th spirit world known as Tikitiki-o-rangi.

Their home is called Te Rauroha. On another occasion they were sent by Io to see which of children of Ranginui and Papatūānuku would be worthy of the three baskets of knowledge. They chose Tane Māhuta the creator of humans and many other species of the forest. Whakamoeariki was the name of the house where dwelt the gods Ruatau, Aitu-pawa, Rehua, and the Pono-aua, called ‘The Many of Pono-aua (Best, 1924a, p. 36).

In an ancient karakia highlighting the relationship of ira atua and ira tangata recited during a person receiving their moko, a reference is made to Ruatau. “From Io knowledge is passed through Ruatau.” This descent from Io to Ruatau and finally to Tane-te-waiora describes how knowledge was passed down from the spirit worlds to the latter, who ultimately passed it on to humans.

Variations of Tane’s name which includes Tane-te-waiora indicating “life, prosperity, welfare, sunlight”, an appropriate term during the process of tā moko (King, M. 1973, pp. 20-22). DNA represents the relationship between the physical and the spiritual, a connection to all ancestors and atua since the beginning of time as does Ruatau.

Common DNA images are a metaphoric symbol of our human whakapapa. Our human chromosomes and genes determine our genetic makeup of individual existence. The molecule is packaged as a double stranded structure that is twisted into a helix. Similarly, the whiri whenu resembles a helix shape. They are physical manifestations of esoteric knowledge from our ancient past brought to life by the art forms of raranga and whatu muka, and all of the knowledge contained within these. This symbol is not unlike the process of miro (spin or roll together), which combines two strands of harakeke and forms a whiri (Taituha, 2014).

Whenu is a single-pair twining’ weaving technique which can be likened to Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid or DNA symbolised by the helix shape, because the living entities; each has an individual whakapapa and are unique because they are individually conceptualized and therefore carry their own story.

Wharenui as a genome

An original WAI 262 claimant Del Wihongi of the Ngā Puhi tribe stated a genome is a representation of a wharenui (Wihongi, H., 2019). This section analyses and extrapolates that statement, providing an indigenised account of how a wharenui represents a genome.

A wharenui has many names, including tipuna whare, whare tipuna, meeting house, marae, etc. In nearly all cases the wharenui proper is not only named after an ancestor but is a physical representation of the tribal ancestor it is named after and resembles the human body in structure.

There is a tendency to use the word ‘marae’ to mean the total complex of buildings and land. In fact, the marae is the open grassed or concrete space immediately in front of the ancestral meeting house. It is correct to use the word marae in either context, but the different meanings should be kept in mind (Richardson et al., 1988).

To comprehend the dynamics involved in maintaining a Māori tribal identity within New Zealand, it is important to understand the most central of all Māori institutions is the marae. It is a physically bounded three-dimensional space, capable of spiritually joining Papatūānuku (land) with Ranginui (sky) into which ira tangata may enter and commune with ira atua (the divine ancestors) (Tapsell, 2002).

The floor of the wharenui represents Papatūānuku, while the roof represents her husband, Ranginui. Tāne Māhuta, who separated the two, is metaphorically represented by the building as the poles that separate the roof and floor. The same representation of a DNA molecule. The two sides of the Phosphate backbone represent Ranginui and Papatūānuku, while the ATCG is a representation of Tāne Māhuta and the separation.

The sacred courtyard in front of a meeting house is Te Maraenui-atea-o-Tūmatauenga – the marae ātea is the domain of Tūmatauenga the Atua of war.

Before entering the wharenui, guests enter into an encounter situation, where challenges are met, and issues are debated on the marae ātea. Speeches and discussions that take place on the marae ātea are allowed to be forceful, representing the nature of Tūmatauenga.

The wharenui is the domain of Rongo, the Atua of peace. Speeches that take place within the wharenui are expected to be more conciliatory. The marae atea is the place where issues about genomic research and data storage, debates and the intentions of the researcher should occur. This allows for full and frank discussions as part of the Full, Prior and Informed Consent process.

DNA Strand. Source https://www.pngitem.com/

The associated wharenui and other prominently named buildings and structures of the marae further reinforce both individual and kin group identity in relation to outsiders by physically representing ancestors to which all members of the marae community genealogically trace their origins.

Consequently, the marae can be interpreted as a dynamic, Māori-ordered, metaphysical space, embracing the fundamental kin-based values of whakapapa (genealogical ordering of the universe according to mana descent and whanaungatanga kinship) and tikanga (the lore of the ancestors maintained by senior elders), where rights of access, especially in times of ritual, continue to be proscribed or prescribed solely by kin leaders. The marae is a living genealogical connection. The very essence of Māori genealogical identity to both the individual, whānau, hapū, iwi, present past and in the future. A DNA is interpreted the same way as explored within this research.

While turangawaewae is used to refer to the people who belong to a place, or the host people, it is also used to refer to the marae, a locale with deeply embedded identity. “The marae is the succession of things Māori from generation to generation” (Awatere & Dewes, 1969, p. 1). Turangawaewae applies to a shared or collective hapū or tribal identity and of belonging within a recognised geographic region (Rewi, 2010b, pp. 38-39). “Turangawaewae is the identity base of its people” (Tauroa, 1989, p. 11).

DNA is a biological form of a turangawaewae that is embedded within all Taonga Species. It is the identity of a place that is from generation to generation discretely succeeded into descendants. A donor who provides the sample is also referred to as the turangawaewae.

The tekoteko (carved figure) at the apex of the barge boards represents a renowned ancestor and represents the head. DNA is a biological material representing a shared identity from a whānau, hapū and Iwi tracing back to the original tipuna.

The maihi or mahua (front barge boards) angled down towards the ground represents the arms held out in welcome to visitors. The amo are short boards at the front of the wharenui representing legs, while the tāhuhu (ridge pole), a large beam running down the length of the roof, represents the spine.

The heke (rafters), reaching from the tāhuhu to the poupou (carved figures) around the walls, represent the ribs. Phosphate backbone is the DNA representation of the maihi.

Inside, the horizontal ridge pole that runs through the centre of the building is seen as the backbone and the rafters are sometimes painted with kōwhaiwhai reaching down from the central ridge to the carved figures around the walls (poupou) representing the ribs.

The carved poupou represent an ancestor or relationships the people of the whare have with other people whilst sheltered inside the body of their tipuna.

Some people choose to rub noses with the pou, the same way that warriors rub noses with their taiaha (weapon) or a waka (canoe) as it is like greeting an ancestor and reiterates that idea that there is this living presence in every object, their mauri.

Connecting each carved poupou (top and bottom) is the papaka, a narrow panel usually decorated with kōwhaiwhai (See 23 in Figure 9). Significantly this represents the mauri (life force) and it goes right around the house (Richardson et al., 1988). Art in meeting houses always relate to particular ancestors and their stories (Mead, 1997, p. 163). A survey of a hundred years of tribal carvings, revealed a sophisticated intergenerational negotiation of internal and external cultural knowledge (Ellis & Robertson, 2016).

The Pou or carved poles represent the Base Pair: guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine. The Pakitara or side walls represent the Sugar phosphate backbone.

On the wharenui, we put up photographs of the ancestor who has passed on. The back wall in particular called a Tuarongo, but often all of the walls have photos of the deceased. We know photos are not the person, but they can become the person. It is the memory of that person being kept alive. A part of their mauri becomes a part of the back wall.

As our DNA is passed from generation to generation, so too is a part of the mauri of the deceased. It serves to remind us of we are and where we come from. The inheritance of DNA from generations to generations is symbolic of the wall of a marae.

Wharenui sourced from

Whare. Source Te Ara The Encyclopedia of New Zealand

Inside the Whare Tipuna (Richardson et al., 1988)

All of the physical attributes of a wharenui encapsulate the general attributes of a genome.

 

Māori DNA as whenua

All Indigenous Peoples around the world have emotional, spiritual, genealogical, and lived experiences to their lands and natural resources that co-exist with the land. All Indigenous Peoples have had their lands and natural resources confiscated by settler colonial military and governments resulting in their inalienable rights to the natural resources being abolished.

Indigenous biological materials/Māori genetic data is no different. The unique stage of this colonial evolution that Māori are presently at, is still in the early stages of significant exploitation and abuse of their genetic data, compared to other Indigenous Peoples such as the First Nations and Native Americans who due to their unique DNA markers, are being exploited by commercial research and scientists.

Unlike Māori DNA at this stage, “the blood of Indigenous Peoples, understood as storehouses of unique genetic diversity due to their presumed long physical and cultural isolation, is highly sought after, and to be collected quickly” (TallBear, K. 2013). Many Māori whānau, hapū and Iwi have been producing biracial children with colonial settlers for centuries. In a similar manner, native forests that once attracted other Taonga Species such as birds, insects, fungi etc., were quickly replaced much of New Zealand’s native forests, and in turn the indigenous eco systems which caused the extinction of many Taonga Species and Māori knowledge of them.

Ngāi Tahu had its first contact with Pākehā sealers and whalers from around 1795 (57 generations). By the 1830s Ngāi Tahu had built up a thriving industry supplying whaling ships with provisions such as pigs, potatoes, wheat and many Ngāi Tahu women married whalers. This may account for one reason a significant Māori bio maker has yet to be found. Once a Māori bio marker is found, it is probable that commercial exploitation of Māori DNA will occur as it has with other Indigenous Peoples. The exploitation will likely be justified by the government as a means to address health equities, in the same manner that confiscated land was justified to socially, and economically, serve the nation as an agricultural country with land that was not apparently of any value or owned by anyone.

The colonisation and interbreeding did not occur with all tribes at the same scale, the same way as the development of Māori land did not occur everywhere in the country, despite being confiscated. This creates future issues and potential for exploitation of specific tribes such as Tūhoe who were least likely to have been colonised and interbred with the colonizer. There is a hypothetical possibility that these Māori tribes who were least likely to have interbred with Pākehā may have a unique bio marker. Land that was not colonised, has many Taonga Species including rare and near extinct species that also include many other species that are still being re identified.

Māori are in the pre-1830’s DNA ownership stage of our physical New Zealand history. Before the Māori land wars, Māori had deep emotional, whakapapa ties to the land and the environment and nurtured it in communal ownership to keep it in perpetual safety. In traditional Māori society, land and natural resources are held collectively by families and tribes for the next generation to avoid loss of land. It is acknowledged that the people are merely the kaitiaki of the land, unlike the commercial exploitation, disregard of cultural values and the destruction of land and natural resources by the colonisers. Present day researchers act in the same way, they assume ownership of samples and Māori genetic data.

The “right to gift access to one’s own body or bodily specimens on the individual is a notion that is rooted in Western bioethics but is culturally incongruent with Indigenous group or communitarian ethics” (Tsosie, Yracheta, Kolopenuk, & Geary, 2021). Māori genetic data that is provided to researchers must follow the same principles as land using intergenerational stewardship (kaitiaki). “Indigenous-derived samples and data accepted for research should be considered the continued property of the donor/community involved; hence DNA is considered “on loan” (Arbour & Cook, 2006) to the researcher as opposed to being a gift (Tsosie et al., 2021). By only loaning biological samples to researchers, as Māori do with land when they lease or rent land, then the potential to participate in the genetic economy is greater, but the risk of having their identities misrecognized, commodified, and sold as ancestry tests will still exist (Fox, K., 2020).

Māori DNA Evolution of bio piracy and Sovereignty.

Phase	Historical moment in NZ history	Task
Phase 1	The Colonial settler period to the Māori Land wars and land confiscations of the 1860’s.	Prove DNA is a Taonga and seek Tikanga Sovereignty (this research).
Phase 2	1860’s when Māori had to identify their whakapapa to the Crown and prove title to their own native lands.	Rely heavily on International Indigenous Peoples experiences with bio commercialisation of gene research. Comparing and proving colonisation, imperialism, bio prospecting, bio colonialism, bio commercialisation of Taonga
Phase 3	1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal Act was introduced.   Modern era of Waitangi Tribunal claims and repatriations.	Taking breaches of Te Tiriti with Māori genetic data to the Tribunal and seek redress.

Māori DNA Evolution of bio piracy and Sovereignty

 

Many Indigenous Peoples have already lost much of their sovereignty with genetic data and research outcomes with commercial, ownership exploitation and bio prospecting. This is Phase 1 of the Māori DNA Evolution.

Māori have a small window of opportunity in phase 1 to prove traditional value of their genetic data and prove that it is a taonga as Māori do with land. This research has already highlighted that for Taonga Species that it may be too late for many, but there is still myriad of Taonga Species that have not been bio pirated to date despite it currently being an academic normal practice to sequence and share the genome in online repositories.

The Second stage for Māori is to prove their identity and indigeneity as occurred in the Māori Land Courts. If Māori are unfortunate to get to stage 2 of this evolution, then Māori will need to rely heavily on the international community of Indigenous arguments.

Unlike other Indigenous Peoples, Māori have the binding treaty obligation of the Crown to the right of protection of Taonga with Te Tiriti. Before stage 3 is considered, wider understanding of traditional tikanga and traditional knowledge and an acceptance of a definition of Taonga Species is required.

---

 

WHAT IS A TAONGA SPECIES?

This chapter does not propose any new definitions for the term Taonga Species, but rather revives customary beliefs and the foundation that inside Te Ao Māori: Whakapapa, Mauri, Kaitiaki, and Whānau are all taonga and are all the essences of what makes up DNA.

The term Taonga Species is a term that is often used in New Zealand legislation and by governments without a definition. It is a fluid term that is used by bureaucrats when it is convenient to include some species while excluding others. The Environmental Reporting (Topics for Environmental Reports) Regulations 2016 mentions Taonga species with no definition as does a number of Department of Conversation resources.

There are several differing and often contradictory references to Taonga species in Waitangi Tribunal reports (Waitangi Tribunal, 2011; 2011a). It is important to note that that these definitions were written before New Zealand became a signatory to the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights 2007. It must also be understood that genomics, familial technologies, DNA testing, Māori Data Sovereignty, digital access, and technology such as Artificial Intelligence and machine learning that can take our mātauranga Māori into new realms did not exist or were not prominent in 2007 or in the WAI 262 report of 2011 (Taiuru, 2019).

Taonga species are mentioned in New Zealand legislation with no definitions. The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Recovery (Coastal Route and Other Matters) Order 2016, section 16.5 refers to Taonga Species as in Schedule 97 of The Ngai Tahu Settlement Act 1988 which is the only written definition in legislation.

The Ngai Tahu Settlement Act 1988 Schedule 97 lists only 117 Taonga Species. The schedule does not recognise any extinct species, despite them having significant place in traditional Ngāi Tahu history, including but not limited to Moa Dinornithiformes and the Haast’s Eagle Hieraaetus moorei which are both in many Ngāi Tahu traditional knowledge stories. Another significant omission from the schedule is the Taonga Species Tuna (eel) Anguilla dieffenbachii and Anguilla australis. Te Taumutu Rūnanga are the kaitiaki of Waihora lake and have significant whakapapa and traditional knowledge to the Tuna of the lake as seen in the following proverb:

Ko ngā hau ki ētahi wāhi
Ko ngā kai kei Orariki
No matter which way the wind blows (season), one can always procure food at Taumutu.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu admitted the oversight during public submissions of the Plant Variety’s Act Review.

The statutory joint land management plan between Iwi [Ngāi Tahu] and the Crown refers to the value of the mahinga kai (cultivated food) “eel” 97 times (Ngāi Tahu & Department of Conservation, 2005). In the glossary the term Taonga Species refers back to Schedule 97 (Tahu & Department of Conservation, 2005, p. 215), despite Tuan not being listed in Schedule 97.

During the consultation period, a small amount of Māori academics stated that Pine Trees and wild pigs/Boar could be considered a Taonga Species as they have value to Māori.
Both species are introduced to New Zealand by colonial settlers. Both species endanger Papatūānuku (the natural environment) by killing Taonga Species (as defined in this guideline). The introduced pigs were largely responsible for the demise of Māori bred pigs and diets.

Pine trees in particular are an invasive species that destroys our native trees and plants resulting in the New Zealand government and local/regional councils spending millions of dollars each year to eradicate and control these pests. Contorta pine (Pinus contorta) pine has been declared an unwanted organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Iwi and many Māori landowners do grow Pine Trees for economic reasons. Ngā Pou a Tāne, the National Māori Forestry Association stated that they need to plant pines due to the legacy of colonialism and land theft that has meant about half of all land owned by mana whenua is currently of little economic value and only useful to plant Pine (Wannan, (2022).

From a Mātauranga perspective, anything non-Māori that attacks the environment or whakapapa cannot be considered a taonga.

Definition for Taonga Species

A taonga species is a species that were present in New Zealand prior to the first European contact with Māori in 1642 (Abel Tasman’s Dutch East India Company expedition) and the descendants of those species who have a whakapapa that can be traced back to Ranginui and Papatūānuku, Tangaroa, the Māori spirit world deities.

It is important not to state species in Aotearoa, as Aotearoa was once only applied to the North Island of New Zealand. In modern day usage Aotearoa is the name of what could be interpreted as “the main two islands and a smaller island that are recorded by the colonial government as North Island, South Island and Stewart Island. The Chatham Islands is referred to by its own Māori name Rekohu.

New Zealand consists of approximately 700 islands all of which have their own unique Māori name, whakapapa and many their own Taonga Species.

This definition also relates to all bones and biological materials of dead and living species as their mauri and wairua are still present. If there is no DNA available, then the species still have whakapapa and are therefore tapu.

The following is a definition of a Taonga Species.

Human body or part of the body of Māori descent. The human body.

1. Endemic species that were born and raised that were resident in New Zealand prior to the first European contact.
   Endemic native species means exclusively native to the biota of a specific place such as Kiwi. Their whakapapa is clearly directly to Tāne Māhuta, Tangaroa, Rongo, Haumia or to their parents Ranginui and Papatūānuku and in some instances directly to the Māori spirit world.
2. Indigenous species/Native Species of New Zealand that were resident in New Zealand prior to European contact. These species have arrived in New Zealand by themselves and established themselves here.
   Indigenous species/Native Species that originate in New Zealand. The difference between endemic and Indigenous species/Native Species of New Zealand is that Indigenous species/Native Species are also found overseas. From a western perspective they may be scientifically the same.
   Indigenous species/Native Species are tapu as the species originated in Ranginui, Papatūānuku, Tangaroa or in the Māori spirit world.
   The species are unique due to the individual species containing mauri of the area they originated from, the tangata whenua, Iwi, hapū and whānau of the land. The land at one time belonged to an Iwi, therefore there will be wairua, mauri and physical objects in the land from the iwi that once occupied that land.
3. Introduced Species that arrived with the migrating waka.
   A species that is a part of Māori culture and was brought to New Zealand by the multiple waves of migration waka. The whakapapa of these species from the ancient homelands of Māori makes these species tapu and therefore a taonga as listed in Appendix A.
   The whakapapa of these species from the ancient homelands makes these species tapu and therefore a taonga. Ancient Māori would not have endured the hardship of bringing these species to New Zealand if they were not of significant importance. The Kūmara is unique as there were many atua associated with Kūmara and many pepeha.
4. Hybrid species that use a species in sections 1-4.
   In biology, a hybrid is the result of combining the qualities of two organisms of different breeds, varieties, species, or genera through sexual reproduction. If a hybrid uses a Taonga Species as identified in sections 1-4, then the hybrid will still contain whakapapa and the mauri of the Taonga Species. Therefore, must be treated as a Taonga Species. The same principles as inter racial relationships in a Māori view need to be considered for hybrid species. It is a colonial tool to describe blood quantum and deny whakapapa.
5. Cosmopolitan species that are found in New Zealand/Aotearoa boundaries whether air, sea, or land.
   In biology, Cosmopolitan typically describes a species with global distribution, it is assumed the polar regions, deserts, high altitudes, and other extremes are automatically excluded. The label may be used to describe species that might be found on most continents but not all, or many ocean habitats but not all. The term is mostly used to describe species that are generally widespread but does not necessarily mean that the species is found absolutely everywhere.
6. Cryptogenic species that are found in New Zealand/Aotearoa boundaries whether air, sea, or land.
   In biology, this a species whose origins are unknown.

---

 

TIKANGA ASSOCIATED WITH BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES

9 Specific Tikanga Associated DNA and other biological samples

The following two primary sources of research have been used to identify appropriate tikanga with Māori genetic Data research: Royal Commission on Genetic modification and the International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education (IRI) based at Auckland University. Māori interviewees for this research also concurred that these are the primary tikanga with gene research.

The public consultation and submissions from the Royal Commission on Genetic modification (RCGM) in 2000 involved a number of meetings around the country and public submissions (Eichelbaum, 2001). The Commission heard from over 400 experts, including scientists, environmentalists, and ethical specialists. It considered more than 10,000 public submissions and heard the view of many others during a series of public meetings, hui, and workshops around New Zealand. The following seven tikanga were identified: Hau, Kaitiaki, Mākutu, Mauri, Rangatiratanga, Wairua and Whakapapa.

The feedback recorded by the Commission is consistent with other research findings (Beaton et al., 2017); (Hudson, Southey, et al., 2016); (Hutchings, 2004a); (Mead, 1996); (Mead, 1998); (Mead, 2016b); (Waitangi Tribunal, 2003a); (Pihama et al., 2015).

The secondary research was conducted by the International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education (IRI) based at Auckland University. They produced a report entitled Māori and Genetic Engineering (Cram et al., 2000). The report explored three key areas (food, human health, and biological diversity). This research was conducted with twenty-four key informant interviews with Māori who were knowledgeable about tikanga Māori and/or GE and related issues as well as nineteen general focus groups with a total of ninety-four Māori from a variety of locations, age brackets and backgrounds.

In total there were eight primary tikanga and cultural concerns identified and explained in depth below. There are seven other identified tikanga Māori concerns that are widely shared with other Indigenous Peoples regarding DNA and genomic research:

1. “Breaches of culture.
2. Use of Indigenous knowledge to create new biotechnological inventions:
3. Lack of consultation with Indigenous Peoples:
4. Lack of benefits to Māori people:
5. Inability of Intellectual Property Laws to protect Māori and their traditional knowledge:
6. Loss of control of traditional knowledge:
7. Commercialisation of genetic materials” (Hutchings, 2004b).

Hau

The primary tikanga that impacts the donor, and the recipient is called “Hau”. Hau is the vitality or vital essence of a person, place, or object. Any gift or thing that is given, has the donor’s hau as a part of that gift. Respecting Hau as a tikanga ensures the physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing of the donor person is respected and protected. It covers a wide range of circumstances with gene research and also aligns with Te Whare Tapa Whā (Durie, 1984).

Hau is also used when returning a present in acknowledgement for a present received (Benton et al., 2013). In New Zealand, regarding human gene samples; The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights: Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996: Right 6, The right to be fully informed and Right 7 “The right to make an informed choice and give informed consent is one way to start the process of recognising the hau of the donor”.

When a DNA sample is taken from a Taonga Species, there must be some reciprocal arrangement with the donor or the kaitiaki of the DNA sample.

The following diagram created provides an illustration of how hau operates.

Hau (Payne, 2020)

 

Kaitiakitanga

Kaitiakitanga is defined in the Resource Management Act as guardianship and/or stewardship. Marsden and Royal (2003) state “Stewardship is not an appropriate definition since the original English meaning of Stewardship is ‘to guard someone else’s property’. Apart from having overtones of a master-servant relationship, ownership of property in the pre-contact period was a foreign concept. The closest idea to ownership was that of the private use of a limited number of personal things such as garments, combs, and weapons. Apart from this, all other use of land, waters, forests, fisheries were a communal and or Iwi right. All-natural resources, all life was birthed from Papatūānuku. Thus, the resources of the earth did not belong to man, but rather man belonged to the earth. Kaitiakitanga and Rangatiratanga are intimately linked”.

In recent times, kaitiaki has become a common term used by bureaucrats in environmental policies and in legislation. Upoko of Ngāi Tahu Rūnanga Ngāi Tūāhuriri states that “Kaitiaki is a term used with such irregularity that it is now meaningless. Today, kaitiaki is a term used by Māori and Pākehā bureaucrats as a gap-filler to mean everything and yet nothing” (Tau, 2017, p. 15).

Benton (2013) states that the modern usage of the word has come to encapsulate an emerging ethic of guardianship or trusteeship especially over natural resources, “Kaitiaki are left behind by deceased ancestors to watch over their descendants and to protect sacred places. Kaitiaki are also messengers and a means of communication between the spirit realm and the human world. Kaitiaki can be in the form of birds, insects, animals, and fish. Many kaumātua act as guardians of the sea, rivers, lands, forests, family, and marae” (Barlow, 1991, p. 41).

The term tiaki, whilst its basic meaning is ‘to guard’ has other closely related meanings depending on the context. Tiaki may therefore also mean, to keep, to preserve, to conserve, to foster, to protect, to shelter, to keep watch over. The prefix kai with a verb denotes the agent of the act. A kaitiaki is a guardian, keeper, preserver, conservator, foster-parent, protector.  The suffix tanga, when added to the noun, transforms the term to mean guardianship, preservation, conservation, fostering, protecting, sheltering.

Each generation has an inherited obligation to act as kaitiaki for the genetic data they have and for their whānau genetic data in addition to other Taonga Species.

Karakia

Karakia act as intermediary between the spiritual world and the temporal world (Rewi, 2010a, p. 138). Karakia plays just as an important role in Māori genetic data research as karakia plays in any other aspect of Māori life. Māori “guarded their well-being by observing tikanga, that is, by observing tapu, and by karakia and rituals which were strictly adhered to lest the hapless practitioner be punished by the deity to whom he had appealed” (Buck, 1949, pp. 489-504).

“Karakia is first mentioned in the story of Ranginui and Papatūānuku. Te Rangikaheke’s version of the story tells how Tūmatauenga was given his karakia after he had overcome his brothers, all except Tāwhiri. He was given his karakia as the means by which he would be able to overcome his elder brothers and use them for food. And so Tāwhirimatea elder brothers were made noa and his karakia were sorted out, the particular karakia for Tāne Māhuta, those for Tangaroa, those for Rongo-mā-Tāne, those for Haumia, those for Tūmatauenga. Tāwhirimatea sorted out these karakia so that his elder brothers might be turned back to him to be his food. There is another karakia for Papatūānuku, which renders free from restriction all that is sought by her. And there is ritual for human beings” (Shirres, 1986).

In another text, Te Rangikaheke says that our karakia come down to us from the time of the separation of Ranginui and Papatūānuku and he names different types of karakia. “It is the same power of the word given to Tū, which is given to us. Then Rangi and Papa were separated. People had become many, there in the darkness. It was from that time that life-giving chants, chants for childbirth, chants for the weather, for sickness, for food, for possessions, and for war, came down to us” (Shirres, 1986).

Karakia often call on the atua and are a means of participation, of becoming one, with the atua and the ancestors and with events of the past in the ‘eternal present’ of ritual. Karakia speak the words of the ancestors and are the work of a people, rather than an individual. “Karakia consists of pleas, prayers and incantations addressed to the gods who reside in the spirit world. Karakia are offered so the gods may intercede in the affairs of mortal men by providing comfort, guidance, direction, and blessings for them in their various activities and pursuits. Some prayers have special ritual functions, while others are used for protection, purification, ordination, and cleansing. Karakia are generally used to ensure a favourable outcome to important events and undertakings and can be used for every aspect of life. Karakia call upon many of our Atua for direction” (Barlow, 1991).

Māori karakia whenever there is a special occasion or something tapu is involved, especially with repatriation of human remains, whakapapa and other tapu objects. Taking a genetic sample, whether from saliva, blood, hair etc., or from the surface of a foreign object, a karakia is required to acknowledge the tapu, mauri, whakapapa and wairua of the species and the associated atua.

Mākutu

Mākutu is both the process of injuring a person or a living entity by sorcery, and the spell or incantation directed at harming an individual or group, a natural consequence of theft or breach of tikanga (Richard Benton et al., 2013, p. 150). There are a number of sources that reference unexplained bad luck or the tikanga of mākutu that occurred after breaking tikanga (Mahuika, 2015); (O’Biso, 1999); (Stirling & Salmond, 1985).

One of the most common forms of mākutu is that in which a medium is used in order to connect the spells of the tohunga with the object to be acted upon by them. This medium, termed ‘ohonga’ and ‘hohonga’, “when it is the object, is usually a fragment of a person’s clothing, a lock of hair, a portion of spittle, or a portion of earth on which he has left his footprint” (Best, 1901, p. 75). Tipuna Māori (Māori ancestors) also considered knowledge to be tapu. As Māori genetic data contains vast amounts of genealogical knowledge, DNA must also be considered tapu.

Breaching tikanga and suffering the consequences are a widely held beliefs among many Iwi and individuals, though not so relevant in modern day society, as much of the tapu has been lifted and the mauri of the natural world dead. But the risk of mākutu is still relevant. Though it may or may not be a spiritual consequence, issues such as bio piracy and Intellectual Property Rights are the modern-day equivalent of mākutu.

As it is becoming more common to provide a saliva test to send to an overseas company who will then identify your ancestry through DNA, the risk of mākutu is very high. Especially considering the sacred whakapapa is being shipped overseas and stored by international staff who have no awareness of tikanga. Considerations of how and where Māori genetic data is stored is essential to ensuring the health and wellbeing of Taonga Species is maintained.

Mauri

Traditional knowledge states that every natural object and living thing has a spiritual aspect called a mauri. If we sit down, our mauri sits down with us and some mauri can be left behind if not considered. Likewise, a photograph of a person contains the mauri of the person. Hence, photos of the dead are tapu. Yet, Māori genetic data is stored somewhere overseas in a laboratory among many other bodily fluids from many other cultures and religions with the DNA from the living and dead.

Māori genetic data is no different. The mauri associated with the Taonga Species is a part of the data and must be treated as sacred. Therefore, any Māori genetic data sample that is stored, manipulated, and anonymised will still contain the mauri of the person in the same manner as a photo.

In te ao Māori, information is tapu and contains the tapu of the person it is about. DNA contains the mauri of not only the individual that the DNA was sourced from, but from their entire genealogical lines of descent.

John Rangihau explains the process of gathering and learning new information “I talk about mauri and some people talk about tapu. Perhaps the words are interchangeable. If you apply this life force to all things – inanimate and animate – and to concepts, and give each concept a life of its own, you can see how difficult it appears for older people to be willing and available to give out information. They believe it’s a part of them, part of their own life force, and whey they depart they are able to pass this whole thing through and give it a continuing character. Just as they are proud of being able to trace their genealogy backwards, in the same way they can continue to send the mauri of certain things forward” (King, 1978).

“Once you learn new knowledge it becomes a part of your mauri” (King, 1978). Hence knowledge was not always provided and could not be provided. Because of this, Indigenous knowledge and artefacts have been taken without permission by researchers and governments without permission.

Rangatiratanga

According to Barlow, this is a new term coined by Pākehā “when the Treaty of Waitangi was written, and the land was colonised. But in recent times, some unschooled Māori have widely adopted the term tino rangatiratanga to epitomize their sovereign powers instead of using the correct term arikitanga” (Barlow, 1991, p. 131). Nevertheless, it is widely understood to be Māori sovereignty. The attributes of Rangatiratanga are possessing authority and being able to act authoritatively, along with nobility, mind and conduct (Benton et al., 2013, p. 325).

This tikanga recognises that the inalienable rights that Māori have with DNA from Taonga Species is essential.

Wairua

Wairua was used in relation to elements such as mauri, whakapapa, karakia and whanaungatanga.

The heavy influence of Christianity has seen the word wairua adopted to be more appeasing to Christianity. The term wairua was adopted in biblical translations to cover terms translated in English as ‘soul’ and ‘spirit (Ballara, 1998); (Benton et al., 2013). At its core, wairua refers to the spirit of a person as distinct from both the body and the mauri “The integrating force of life is the wairua; wairua envelopes the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, intestines, blood, muscles, ears, it is the cultivator, caretaker, and integrator of all these things, so they stay in that place, within the part of the body. The wairua and its properties are also revered because they are the cause of man’s sanctity; if the wairua did not disengage itself, man would not die; and if every part (of the body) that was cleansed of tapu was held onto by the wairua, life would not end” (Benton et al., 2013).

“At its core, wairua refers to the spirit of a person as distinct from both the body and the mauri” (Benton et al., 2013). Wairua lives in and is a part of a DNA. Therefore, once DNA has been taken, that person or other species wairua has also been taken and is stored in a foreign system. Not until the species with which the DNA was taken is dead, will the wairua also die, but the mauri will remain.

Wairua is a fundamental aspect of any genetic Māori data that must be recognised and respected.

Whakapapa

“In its simplest sense whakapapa is genealogy, in a wider sense whakapapa attempts to impose a relationship between an iwi and the natural world. For Māori, “the world was ordered and understood by whakapapa and is the skeletal structure to Māori epistemology” (Te Maire. Tau, 2001). Moreover, whakapapa is “a metaphysical framework constructed to place oneself within the world” (Tau, 2003). It is one of the most prized forms of knowledge and great efforts are made to preserve it (Barlow, 1991, p. 174) & (Gibbons 2002, p. 7). Whakapapa was the central principle that ordered the universe (Salmond, 2017, p. 42). Whakapapa can be interpreted literally as ‘the process of layering one thing upon another’ (Ngata 2011, p. 6). In a wider sense whakapapa attempts to impose a relationship between an iwi and the natural world. Moreover, whakapapa is a metaphysical framework constructed to place oneself within the world (Tau, 2003). Joe Te Rito has written that whakapapa grounds him ‘firmly in place and time’, and connects us to the past in ways that confirm our identity as Māori through a deep sense of ‘being’ (Te Rito, 2007, p. 9).

“In research, whakapapa has been presented in tribal histories, Māori Land Court records, and consistently as a framework for mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and Māori research methodologies” (Mahuika, 2019). “Whakapapa is a research methodology or tool apt in the analysis of natural ‘phenomena’, origins, connections and relationships, and even predicting the future” (Te Ahukaramū Charles. Royal, 1992, pp. 6-8).

Whakapapa has always been considered the explanatory framework for the world and everything in it. Whakapapa chronicled evolutions from the beginning of time and explained Māori social and political organisation to each other and the natural and spiritual world. Whakapapa as an approach, whether it be relevant to genetics, history, education, or elsewhere, is inextricably connected to underlying protocols and tribal ethics. “Whakapapa has its own tribal specific, and collective Māori, politics that seek out connections and inclusivity and are necessarily exclusive when it comes to exercising and asserting ownership and authority” (Mahuika, 2019)

The ethics of whakapapa has its own broad array of commentary. Māori have reminded museums and curators, for example, that the true custodianship of Māori artefacts belong first and foremost to those peoples who have specific genealogical relationships with those taonga (treasures). Whakapapa, then, is part of the requirement for one to exercise guardianship or ‘kaitiakitanga’ (Mahuika, 2010). “There is a genealogy for every word, thought, object, mineral, place, and person” (Roberts 2015). The importance of whakapapa in the Māori world is paramount because it is considered crucial to assertions of Māori identity and tribal membership. Ngai Tahu leader, Tā Tipene O’Regan, stated that “whakapapa ‘carries the ultimate expression’ of who he is, and that without it he would be simply an ‘ethnic statistic’” (O’Regan 1987, p. 142). Ngāti Porou leader remarked that “whakapapa is the ‘heart and core of all Māori institutions from creation to what is now iwi’” (Mahuika, 1998, p. 219).

Whakapapa teaches us of our environment and the relationships each thing has with each other such as fresh water with stones, or kauri with whales. It is all in our whakapapa knowledge. Unfortunately, due to colonisation and Eurocentric influences, much of the knowledge is hard to find, lost or kept secret.

Sir Tipene O’Regan stressed the living and connected nature of whakapapa between ancestors and Māori in the present, stating that “my past is not a dead thing to be examined on the post-mortem bench of science without my consent and without an effective recognition that I and my whakapapa are alive and kicking” (O’Regan, 1987, p. 142).

Māori genetic data contains all of the original hosts whakapapa and various other sensitive information to the host including, diseases, health vulnerabilities, inherited memories etc.

 

Cosmology & Deities

For many years, and even still today, Māori cosmology is incorrectly referred to as myth, legends, and fairy tales by non-Māori, even by some Māori scholars. Reed & Calman 2008 describes these descriptive words as unfortunate terms and that some people prefer the word ‘truth’. The intergenerational misuse and contradiction of these words to describe Māori Cosmology is likely due to New Zealand (prior to the 1990’s when immigration criteria were made more open) being dominated by Christian and Eurocentric values and society not having an appetite to use non-Christian terms. It is also an intergenerational sign of the fear of the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.

“Within the new-comers work, ancestors who were previously accepted as real and living in Māori genealogy were reimagined in fables and legends that colonisers called Polynesian mythologies and fairy tales” (Reed, 1974, p. 1). In a culture that lives and grows, there need be nothing outmoded or discredited about mythology. “Properly understood, Māori mythology and traditions provide myth-messages to which the Māori messages be more clearly sign posted” (Walker, 1978).

“Myth and legend are an integral part of the corpus of fundamental knowledge held by philosophers and seers of the Māori and indeed of the Polynesian people of the Pacific from ancient times. Myth and legend in the Māori cultural context are neither fables embodying primitive faith in the supernatural, nor marvellous fireside stories of ancient times. They were deliberate constructs employed by the ancient seers and sages to encapsulate and condense into easily assimilable forms their view of the World, of ultimate reality and the relationship between the Creator, the universe and man” (Marsden & Royal, 2003, p. 177).

Cosmology contains many warnings about Māori genetic data and the sacredness of body fluids. The first of the cosmology stories that provide warnings about misuse of DNA is about Tāne Māhuta creating the first woman Hineahuone. Tāne, with the help of his brother Tangaroa who ripped off part of his chest. But in the process of making the woman, Tane had inadvertently created many of the species of the forests, monsters, and other evil beings. The lesson in this story is that there are unintentional consequences with gene manipulation if the whakapapa is not known and if you research and manipulate genes without caution.

 

Māui and his knowledge of Taonga Species genetic data

Māui in Māori traditions is a famous Polynesian ancestral hero. In a western construct, we are taught that Māui is a trickster and a troublemaker. The pepeha Māui tinihanga appears to confirm this (Te Pipiwharauroa, 1909). The pepeha has been translated as Māui the trickster. Māui was noted for his tricks he played that finally this led to his death by Hine-nui-i-te-pō (Mead & Grove, 2001, p. 289). I argue that the pepeha has been myopically translated with a Eurocentric perspective.

Māui represented someone who challenged status quo knowledge and traditions, and therefore provided a “destabilising force that guarded against hegemony and opened up pathways for change” (Claw et al., 2018). Māui was a disruptive leader who provided Māori with a plethora of advancements.

There are many Māui traditions that relate that ancient Māori had intimate knowledge of Māori genetic data of all Taonga Species and that there were a number of tikanga practices. Traditional practices of transformation are what are now called genetic modification.

The first is the story of Māui transforming himself into a bird. Māui wanted to find where his mother would visit each day without inviting his brothers. To do this, Māui transformed himself into all manners of birds, of every bird in the world, and yet no single form that he then assumed had pleased his brothers. Eventually he transformed himself into a pigeon (Grey, 1995, p. 16). The story is also found in the following pepeha “Mehemea a Rupe”: “If I were Rupe”. Rupe is the personification of the pigeon. Māui changed himself into a pigeon and thus was able to fly where he wished. The expression is best applied to someone taken prisoner and wishes to escape (Brougham, 1975). Brougham 1975:34; (Grey & Solomon, 1857, p. 68).

In another story Māui turned his brother-in-law Irawaru into a dog after a disputed fishing trip, where Māui was tricked by Irawaru to use a fish hook with no barb so that he could not catch fish (Grey, 1995, p. 32). Ngāti Porou states Irawaru was turned into a dog by Māui as Māui wanted to acquire his dog tail cape (Orbell, 1995, p. 76). Such a cloak made of dog skin was valued by warriors as a defence against spear thrusts.

Māui tricked Irawaru into eating faeces. Hence dogs today often eat faeces. Irawaru is now considered the founding ancestor of dogs. The event is reflected in the following pepeha He tāpahu o Irawaru. A dog skin cloak of Irawaru (Brougham, 1975, p. 45); (Kohere, 1951, p. 136).

Rohe was a wife of Māui. She was beautiful as he was ugly, and on his wishes to change faces with her, she refused his request. Māui, however, by means of an incantation over Rohe while she was sleeping, swapped their faces. In the morning when Rohe awoke she was distraught. She then committed suicide to live in the spirit world (Tregear, 1891, pp. 233-234 & 421).

After Māui tricked Mahuika (atua of fire) into providing all of her fire, Mahuika set fire to the world and the oceans to chase Māui. Māui then transformed himself into a hawk to escape. When that proved of no use, he then asked his atua for assistance (Cooper, 2012, p. 234; Edward. Tregear, 1891).

“At a certain time, the thought came to Māui that he would strive to gain eternal life for man, that man might revive from decay as the moon does. He called together his people—the forest elves, the birds, and the multitude of the Mahoihoi—and explained to them his design. They said, “Māui, you will perish. Beware! Your spirit has been taken by Hine-nui-te-Po.” But Māui persisted, and so he and his people fared on until they found the dread Goddess of Hades, who was asleep. Said Māui to his folk, “You must be very careful not to laugh while I enter the body of Hine, lest she awaken and slay me. When I have gained [or obtained] her manawa, then all will be well. Do as I say and Hine [or her power to inflict death upon mankind] shall be destroyed.” Then Māui essayed to enter the body of Hine by the passage whence man is born into the world. But when he had half entered, the strange sight was too much for Pīwakawaka (the fantail, a bird), who laughed aloud. Hence awoke the dread Goddess of Death, who, by closing her puapua (labia) caused the death of Māui. So perished Māui, the hero, he who performed marvellous deeds, but who succumbed in his effort to gain eternal life for man” (Best, 1976b, pp. 380-381). This is the reason menstrual blood is tapu. Menstruation was seen as a medium of whakapapa (genealogy) that connected Māori women to our pantheon of atua (Murphy, 2011).

Another story states Māui assumed the form of the rat, but to this Tatahore objected, then that of a reptile, which Tiwaiwaka condemned, then that of a form of a worm, which was approved of by his companions (Best, 1924a, p. 378).

The story of Māui’s death is remembered in the following Te Aupōuri pepeha: Ko Hina kai tangata. Hina holds the power over night and day and is the cause of death. When she spread her legs wide open, it was light. Then a servant Māui-mua laughed at her and she closed her legs, causing darkness, resulting in light and darkness of the world. Māui-Pōtiki urged that death be of short duration like the night. Hina refused; she wanted death to be long so that those left behind would mourn. This is the reason why we weep the dead (White & Didsbury, 1887, p. II.80).

 

Classes of Atua

The primary meaning of ‘divine being’ is at the core of the term Atua, and other associations flow from this. An atua is invisible but may have visible symbolic or tangible manifestations. “Thus, in the eighteenth century the term covered gods, ghosts, unexplainable phenomena and representations of divine beings” (Benton et al., 2013).

This framework proposes seven classifications of Atua. All of which are relevant to Māori genetic data. Elsdon Best classed Atua into four categories (Best, 1922, p. 140). Sir Peter Buck added a fifth category for tribal gods (Buck, 1949, p. 460).

This research has further defined “Class 1” and added two further categories recognising the parents of the Departmental or Tutelary Deities Ranginui and Papatūānuku (point 2 below) and their grandchildren (point 4 below).

Class	Description
1	Kore (The beginning or the darkness). Io the Supreme Being – Io is disputed with many Iwi. Most, if not all Iwi agree that there was a Kore and that there were between 10 and 12 spirit worlds with various Atua, some of whom Taonga Species are derived from.
2	The parents of the Departmental or Tutelary Deity Ranginui, Tangaroa and Papatūānuku.
3	Departmental or Tutelary Deity – The multitude of children of Ranginui and Papatūānuku. Some Iwi have the number between 72 and 74 children.
4	Second and subsequent Departmental or Tutelary Deities. These are the grandchildren and other generations of Departmental or Tutelary Deity of Ranginui and Papatūānuku.
5	Tribal Atua – An example here is an atua of Kūmara for an iwi. These are relevant to Taonga species.
6	Family atua, familiar spirits: These spirits could appear as birds, dogs, lizards or sometimes insects. These atua are relevant to human genome research.
7	Cultural heroes with superpowers such as Tāwhaki and Māui.

Atua

The table above differs greatly from Ngāi Tahu Scholar Te Maire Tau who argues there are issues defining what myth is and what is tradition. His proposed “Oral Traditional Chart” created mainly for historians defining historical whakapapa, consists of four realms: Realm of Myth (Class 1-7 above); Mytho-history Realm (Class 1-7 above); Historical Realm (Oral) and Historical Realm (Written) which considers physical ancestors who are human beings (Tau, 2003, p. 19).

 

Taonga Species – Primary Atua

All of the various species and orders partook of mauri and for that reason were tapu to a greater or lesser degree. Each class type, species and genus are under the protection of its tutelary deity (Marsden & Royal, 2003). All species have a whakapapa to a number of children of Ranginui, Papatūānuku, Tangaroa and their children and grandchildren. Some Taonga Species also have a direct descent from the Māori spirit worlds. A comprehensive list in in Appendix B.

Every human being who has whakapapa Māori, has either a direct or indirect descent to Ranginui, Papatūānuku or Tangaroa, noting there are iwi variations to this. As an example, Te Arawa whakapapa states they are descendants from the stars in the heavens “Ohomairangi was born from the union of the ancestor Pūhaorangi, who descended from the heavens and slept with Te Kuraimonoa. Six generations later when war ravaged the Polynesian island of Rangiātea, Ohomairangi’s descendant Tamatekapua led his people to the North Island of New Zealand in the canoe named Te Arawa” (Tapsell, 2017).

All non-human species are the tuākana of human beings. Some Iwi can claim closer genealogical links to various species as their direct tipuna or atua.

The tutelary deities would place guardian spirits over places or things to watch over the property dedicated to them. “These kaitiaki manifested themselves by appearing in the form of animals, birds, or other natural objects as a warning against transgression, or to effect punishment for a breach of tapu” (Marsden & Royal, 2003, p. 6).

The figure below (is intended as a general summary and may differ regionally and within Iwi who may have their own variations, including not recognising Io, shows the genealogy from the genesis atua, to Ranginui and Papatūānuku, to their children who are the primary parents of all Taonga Species. From these children are offspring, the grandchildren of Ranginui and Papatūānuku who are the atua of all Taonga Species.

Whakapapa of Atua

 

Papatūānuku

Papatūānuku was conceived by tangata whenua as the primordial mother who with Ranginui birthed the tutelary deities and humankind. These tutelary deities’ role is to take charge over the elements – winds, forests, ocean, cultivated crops etc.

Papatūānuku is our mother who deserves to be nurtured and respected as a human mother. From unicellular through to more complex multicellular organisms each species depends on each other species as well as its own, to provide basic biological needs for existence. The different species contribute to the welfare of other species and together they help us to sustain the biological functions of their mother, as a living organicism. They also facilitate the process of ingestion, digestion, and waste disposal; they cover her and clothe her to protect her against the ravishes of her son Tāwhirimatea. She nourishes them, they nourish her.

 

Rehua

In Kāi Tahu stories, Rehua is the first son of Rakinui and Papatūānuku and is regarded as a very sacred atua who resides in the highest realm (12^th) of the spirit worlds. Rehua gave his younger brother Tāne the seeds of all vegetation and also all of the bird species to being back to earth to decorate their mother Papatūānuku and so that the birds and insects could eat.

In many North Island stories, several atua including Māui, Tāwhaki and Tāne were given specific Trees and birds to being back to earth. These species include the senior lines of the forest such as Mānuka, Tōtara and many species of birds including Huia, Toroa, Bittern Cuckoo (Long tailed), Fernbird (Bowdleria punctate), Harrier (Cirus approximans) Heron/White Heron (Egretta alba), Mountain Parrot (Nestor notabilis), Kea and Quail (Coturnix novaezelandiae).

Tāne

Tāne Māhuta for many iwi is the tutelary deity of the forest and all its species. Tāne then created the first woman Hineahuone and bore many children to her, their first child is Tiki.

A hapū of Ngāi Tahu in Moeraki believe that Tāne Māhuta and his sister Paia produce the first human being (Orbell, 1995, p. 30). While other hapū in Ngāi Tahu state Tāne Māhuta crated Tiki Auaha as the first human being made from earth and then created a companion for himself and that they copulated in Hawaiki before coming to New Zealand (Tiramōrehu et al., 1987, p. 31).

 

Tangaroa

Tangaroa is the tutelary deity of all oceans, freshwater species, and reptiles. Ko te mana o uta, o te moana, ko Tangaroa. “Tangaora the influential being of land and sea” (Best, 1972, p. 772).

In Ngāi Tahu traditional knowledge, Takaroa copulated with Papatūānuku first creating a number of children. Then when he was away, Ranginui copulated with Papatūānuku creating other children.

Tangaroa Whakapapa – (Roberts, M., 2013)

 

Rongo-mā-Tāne

Rongo is the tutelary deity of cultivated food products such as the Kūmara (Ipomoea batatas), Taro (Colocasia esculenta), Hue (Lagenaria siceraria), Ari (bloodless, dry, sapless food and herbs, hence it was used as an offering to the gods in those ancient times), Korau (root crops) as well as other crops and vegetation and such other products as may have been cultivated in past times and other lands (Best, 1910, p. 176). As the protector of crops, Rongo was appealed to as the one to cause all crops to flourish and bear abundantly.

Rongo Whakapapa (Roberts, 2013)

 

Haumia

The tutelary deity of all uncultivated food particularly associated with the rhizome of the Bracken (Pteridium esculentum). Some Iwi including Kāi Tahu and the Takitimu waka have Haumia as great grandson of Ranginui and Papatūānuku.

As with any whānau Māori in the physical world of humans, there are other siblings of Ranginui and Papatūānuku who act as carers (tuākana) to Taonga Species. These include Rūamoko the tutelary deity of minerals and Tāwhirimatea the tutelary deity of the weather.

Haumia is mentioned in a number of pēpeha, reinforcing his position as an atua.

Ko Rongo, ko Haumia he mea huna. Both Rongo and Haumia are hidden. This refers to the quarrel of Rongo and Haumia when they both hid inside Papatūānuku where they remain today.

Ko Haumia nāna te aruhe. Haumia of the fernroot. A reference to the Atua of fernroot Haumia.

Ko Haumia tiketike, Tangaroa hakahaka. “Lofty Haumia, low Tangaroa. Haumia the atua of bracken grows high on the hills. On the other hand, Tangaroa resides out of sight, below the sea’s surface, yet both are important to human existence” (Best & Andersen, 1977, p. 73); (Grey & Solomon, 1857, p. 52).

The following two images are based on Kāi Tahu iwi from North Canterbury whakapapa of the primary deities of Taoka Species.

Kāi Tahu Whakapapa Taoka Species

 

In Kāi Tahu the creation stories are very different to most other Iwi, but closely resemble the genealogy from Ngāti Porou on the East Coast of the North Island.

Ngāi Tahu Scholars including Te Maire Tau and Eruera Prendergast-Tarena argue that Io was not introduced in traditional Kāi Tahu knowledge till post colonisation. Unlike other stories, Ranginui and Papatūānuku has several relationships with other atua before their relationship. Rakinui and Pokoharuatepoo conceived Takaroa the atua of the ocean and all related species.

Papatūānuku and Rakinui had numerous children including Tāne, Rehua (of birds and seeds. Tane brought them from the 12th spirit world to Earth to clothe his mother Papatūānuku.)

Rongo is the Atua of Kūmara, though Kāi Tahu tradition states that Pou brought Kūmara from Hawaiki on the back of a giant bird named Te Manu Nui-a-Tāne. Te Kāhui Matangi people of the kaitiaki of Kūmara seeds while Tipua is the atua of uncultivated foods.

 

Ira Tangata/Human Atua

Ngāi Tahu Human Creation

 

In Kāi Tahu traditional knowledge, Tāne created Hinetītama the first human, and then produced their son Tiki. While in other tribal traditions Tāne created the first human Hineahuone.

Tāne formed a body from sand then clay. He shaped and moulded it with his hands until there appeared a head. He pulled out of the earth, forming four legs and a tail. Tangaroa gave his ocean water to the clay body and when it mixed with the clay it turned red and become blood.

Tūmatauenga tore off a piece of his chest giving it to the new creation saying it will have a ‘heart of courage like mine’. Then Tane gave the clay body the “Breath of Life”. (Robinson, 2005, pp. 37-38). “Ruataiepa had a vagina pedenda muliebria; Whatai a labia; Punaweko some hair; Māhuta and Tarewa both had a penis” (Tiramōrehu et al., 1987, p. 31).

Each part of the human body has an atua associated with it and a story of creation. For example, menstrual blood is tapu, as it is the blood of Māui Tikitiki who was crushed to death when he entered Hineahuone thus making human beings’ mortal and able to reproduce (Murphy, 2011). The left side of the body is noa (free from spiritual restrictions), the right hand is tapu (Best, 1972, pp. 1088,1099). A list of atua associated with the Ira Tangata is in Appendix C.

In addition to body parts, body fluids also have a whakapapa. Traditional knowledge states the origins of all fluids from human beings (blood the only exception) originated from the seminal fluid of Tāne Māhuta after he created Hineahuone. Tāne Māhuta interfered with the whare o te ora (female reproductive organs) of Hine Ahu-one by trying to insert his penis into various orifices and ejaculating within them.

Tāne inserted his penis into the eye; the result was tears (Best, 1972, p. 767); Tāne inserted his penis into the ear: the result was earwax (Best, 1972, p. 767). Tāne inserted his penis into the nostril: the result was snot and other discharges ( Best, 1972, p. 767); Tāne inserted his penis into the mouth: the result is saliva ( Best, 1972, p. 767);Tāne inserted his penis into the armpits: the result was sweat (Best, 1972, p. 767), Tāne thrust his penis against the forehead of Hine Ahu-one; the result is sweat (Orbell, 1995, p. 54).

In the ancient Ngāi Tahu karakia recording the creation of the first human by Tāne Māhuta, is a similar story that collaborates the above sources:

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your head?

That pool is the place of the hair, not that.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your forehead?

That pool is the place of the sweat, not that.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your nose?

That pool is the place of mucus, not that.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your eye?

The pool is the place of tears, not that.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your ears?

That pool is the place of wax, not that.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your mouth?

That pool is the place for swallowing food, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your neck?

The pool is the place for the Adams apple, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your armpit?

That pool is the place for the smell of sweat, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your breast?

That pool is the place for breasts, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your bosom?

That pool is the place for the breast, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your navel?

The pool is the place for the navel, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your hip?

That pool is the place for the hip, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? Your buttock?

That pool is the place for buttocks, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? Your anus?

That pool is the place for faces, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your body?

That pool is the place for the body, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your thigh?

That pool is the place for the thigh, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your knees?

That pool is the place for the knees, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your feet?

That pool is the place for the feet, not that place.

Where shall I apply my penis? What about your vagina, your vagina is the good place?

That place for the penis, the straight erection, for the bent erection.

It couples, it sports, it is full, it springs (Tiramōrehu et al., 1987, pp. 31,32).

 

Karakia

When the tapu fluid is moved from its donor (turangawaewae) and enters into a new environment (our physical world) there should be an opportunity to recite, or for the human donor to recite appropriate ceremonies such as a poroporoaki (farewell ceremony); mihi whakatau or pōwhiri (welcoming ceremonies) and or a karakia[15]. This recognises the donors’ biological fluids are tapu and contain wairua and mauri is entering into a new world.

A karakia is also required to be recited at the start of any work with, during, or prior to the disposal process of a Taonga Species sample, acknowledging the relevant tipuna and atua of the Taonga Species.

When obtaining a sample from a human donor, there are multiple scenarios for cultural engagement when a Taonga sample is collected, depending on the beliefs of the Māori participant.

Scenario 1

The donor should be given the opportunity to engage the DHB Māori Chaplain/Institute tikanga advisor/Whānau, who is able to provide an appropriate Christian/Anglican religious service prior to the blood sample being taken.

If the potential donor is a member of another faith, the DHB chaplain is likely to have the contacts and volumes of sacred texts of the myriad of other Māori and non-Māori religious practitioners including Pai Mārire Hauhau, Ringatū, Rātana etc

Scenario 2

The donor asks for words of a karakia so that they can recite a karakia, then a list of Christian and traditional Māori karakia should be provided.

Scenario 3

The potential donor identifies with traditional pre-colonial theological beliefs (often referred to as Ngā Atua) should be given the opportunity to either recite their own karakia before/during or after the blood is taken; or, engage and consult with a kaumātua/whānau/hapū or other culturally competent person before providing a sample. This would require a new identifier sticker to differentiate which taonga sample it is.

Fresh running water for the specific purpose of making noa the physical location and the researcher should be available where possible. If this is not possible, a container with fresh water should be available for the exclusive purpose of removing tapu. To be effective, the water must be flowing, so an area where the water can be flicked onto and around the person and the physical environment. Any left-over water should be directly placed back in Papatūānuku (earth).

Knowledge of the deities of individual Taonga Species is essential to protect the mauri of the Taonga Sample and to show respect with appropriate karakia and safety of storage.

Some examples include: Tohorā and Kauri are brothers who share common DNA; Kūmara and Fern Root who represent peace and war, hence they are enemies and should not be stored together; the common moth and the Trevally (Pseudocaranx georgianus) are related, the moth has its moko from the Trevally fish so already shares the same DNA and can be stored together.

 

Karakia to start work

E Rangi

E Papa

E te Whānau atua

Whakatōhia to koutou

Manaakitanga

Ki roto i tēnei mahi

O Mātou

 

Human Being Karakia

E Papatūānuku,

e Tāne Māhuta,

e Hine Ahuone,

e te whānau atua o te ira tangata,

whakapainga tēnei toto,

Āe!

Papatūānuku, Tāne Māhuta, Hine Ahuone and the other creators of the human body, infuse your support and care with this taonga body tissue/fluid taonga sample.

 

Non-Human Karakia

It is important to know the whakapapa of the Taonga Species and incorporate their names into an appropriate karakia for the iwi region you are in. Noting some Atua and Kaitiaki names vary from mare/hapū/Iwi.

An example of atua for caterpillars are below:

Tāne Māhuta – Hinetuamainga

Te Putoto – Takaaho

Tuteahuru – Hine Peke

Pukupuku (Origins of Caterpillar)

Then the relevant caterpillar name and associated whakapapa.

 

Maramataka

The most important functions of the Māori lunar calendar (Maramataka) are to regulate planting, harvesting, fishing, hunting, and planning for the community. “The Maramataka is the basis of the cultural life of the community, acting as an indicator of appropriate times for the onset or cessation of various activities. Much like whakapapa, the maramataka is deeply interwoven with atua, stars, weather, land, ocean and living species” (Matamua, 2017).

The names and meanings of the moon nights have ecological knowledge encoded in them, which described the influence of the moon cycle on fishing and planting activities (Ropiha, 2010). One night of the moon is referred to as a division of time and includes the whole 24-hour period (Tāwhai, 2013, p. 13). Various phases of the moon will impact on various Taonga Species and their spiritual and emotional wellbeing.

Each Iwi have their own subtle different names and times of the maramataka, so it will be dependent on the iwi affiliations of the person providing a gene sample or where the geographical location of the Taonga Species was sourced. There are more than 43 published and unpublished maramataka from a number of iwi and a preliminary analysis of the meaning of the moon nights (Roberts et al., 2006).

Consideration of relevant atua of both human and Taonga Species is required. If the person providing the genetic sample has a whakapapa to stars in the sky of the period, then the tipuna should be acknowledged. Taonga species atua in relation to the maramataka is also important.

Within the maramataka are three different periods when the human body experiences different levels of energy of High Energy, Medium Energy and Low Energy. The higher the energy the healthier the physical, mental, and spiritual sides of the human body are. During these high energy days, are when human beings should have any gene extraction, editing and sequencing should occur.

 

Culturally safe laboratory

All samples from a Taonga Species should be referred to as a Taonga Sample. This signifies that the sample is precious to Māori, whānau, hapū, marae, rōpū Māori and Iwi and that it needs to have Te Tiriti o Waitangi protections and considerations and be treated with appropriate cultural practices.

There are cultural, ethical, and spiritual implications of working with Māori biological data from any Taonga Species. As DNA from a Taonga Species is tapu and contains whakapapa from the physical, cognitive, and spiritual realms, the place of extraction, analysis and research must therefore be made clear of all spiritual obstructions (noa).

To make the laboratory, storage, place of extraction, testing or sequencing noa is the same practices as if you have a physical taonga, or a tūpāpaku (dead body). The physical area should be made off limits to all food and beverages, this includes in the pockets of people and in any containers such as bags and lunch boxes. Cell phones and computers should be away from the area and if possible, all Wi-Fi and Bluetooth should be switched off.

The people working with the Māori genetic data from a Taonga Species should not be ill or have any terminal illness. For women, some caution should be considered it they are pregnant. The researchers should all be fully versed in their own whakapapa.

Māori biological materials need to be stored and handled as they are a complete tūpāpaku or koiwi (corpse). Māori biologic data should be stored in a wāhi tapu (sacred place with secure and limited access). A separate bio bank for Taonga samples is most appropriate and a system that catalogues the donor’s iwi and hapū.

Indigenising/Māorification of gene bank and database of Taonga Samples is to consider it as a waka huia. Waka huia were used to store valuables and treasures (Phillipps, G., 1963). A gene bank and its software and database(s) and the physical server and computers also should be treated as tapu and considered as a waka huia.

Access to the Māori genetic data held in the wāhi tapu database and biobank should be restricted and provided only in consultation with a Māori Advisory Committee, kaumātua or other Māori authority acting upon the advice of the whānau, hapū or Iwi.

The Māori biological data should be handled, stored, and transported with appropriate traditional Māori customs including separate and clearly labelled packing that highlights the contents as sensitive items (Otago Museum Trust Board, 2014, p. 11).

 

Identification of Taonga Species Samples

Tonga Samples must be easily identified from non-Taonga Samples, allowing the appropriate respect and cultural practices to be enacted. The usage of a Kawakawa label is explained further here.

As biological data has a mauri, hau, wairua and whakapapa and is a Taonga, consideration must be taken when storing data and genetic material of the living and the dead. The Taonga Species biological data of the living and the dead should be separated where possible.

Consideration of the genealogical narratives of the species Māori biological data is also important. Storing Māori genetic data of Kūmara with Fern samples is not appropriate (Henare, Holbraad, & Wastell, 2007).

Care and consideration for an appropriate label is required and it is not acceptable to merely find an image off the Internet to use. An appropriate sticker should be a colour sticker that is easily identifiable to the lab clinician/researcher. The colour could be blue representing the epistemology of blood from the Māori creator of blood Tangaroa, or red/brown which also represents the origins of blood as the Papatūānuku who provided Tāne with red ochre to mix with his body fluids to create blood for human beings.

If there is a desire to use an image, then an appropriate image is of a Kawakawa leaf (Macropiper excelsum) which is used to protect the living from the dead and the dead from bad luck etc.

Kawakawa, is a sacred tree and in many Iwi is said to be a tuākana brought directly to earth from the higher spirit worlds, hence it is one of the more tapu trees. Kawakawa can signify respect to the dead. Green is also the colour of mourning and the colour of welcome. The intention of the Kawakawa leaves as a label is twofold. Extracting the Taonga Sample interferes with the hau, mauri and wairua of the person or Taonga Species that the sample was taken from.

The sample will be in a foreign environment, isolated from the kaitiaki (donor) who once protected the sacred sample that contains whakapapa. It is most likely that the end result of the sample is that it will be destroyed.

The intention of taking the sample is to provide new knowledge or to verify a western science is mātauranga Māori. Therefore, a Kawakawa image both shows a new beginning and that the sample will be destroyed. The sacredness of the Kawakawa also protects the hau, mauri, whakapapa and wairua while is isolated.

Examples of Identification Labels

The following are examples of appropriate labels to distinguish between Taonga and non-Taonga samples. These labels can be used for Freezer Tops, Tubes and Rack/Box labels etc.

The Kawakawa in the image was taken from Ōhikaparuparu/Sumner in Canterbury using appropriate karakia and ceremonies

Tonga Species Freezer Top, Rack and Box label

Tonga Species Tube labels

Disposal

Article II Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi gives Māori the right to “tino rangatiratanga over their own taonga. In relation to the disposal of a taonga biological materials this is the right to practice traditional cultural practices that were practices when disposing of a body or a body part including body fluids such as blood and other materials from accidents and warfare.

Any left-over biological matter whether fluid, in a tissue, swab, gel, syringe, glove or other consumable, should be offered to the donor, or disposed of in a culturally appropriate manner that may involve a religious person or a kaumatua/whānau/hapū or other culturally competent person.

New Zealand health facilities have guidelines in place for disposal of human remains and organs. Māori genetic data on foreign materials is no different. If equipment needs to be sterilised, then where possible, the water that was set aside for karakia and to make noa, could be used to initially rinse the equipment over Papatūānuku.

Separate disposal streams and receptacles should be maintained for any tube, disposable equipment (e.g., needles, butterfly sets) or plate that has been in contact with a Taonga Sample. These should be stored separately in a dedicated freezer and disposed with a cultural ceremony.

Any reagents or washings that have been used for the Taonga Sample should also be frozen and stored for appropriate disposal or placed into the ground.

Any organisation with Māori biological data should have appropriate plans to cooperate with whānau, hapū, iwi or kaitiaki for the repatriation of Māori genetic data in its care, under the guidance of a Māori Advisory Committee, kaumātua or other Māori authority acting upon the advice of the whānau, hapū, Iwi or kaitiaki.

Returning of a deceased Taonga Species sample

It is cultural best practice in the case of a deceased study participant, for whānau (for a human) or representative group such as hapū, iwi and kaitiaki to request the return of any stored sample(s), and to request the data is withdrawn from the study database, or for the sample to be destroyed in a culturally appropriate manner if Health and Safety are a concern.

The return of any biological materials from a Taonga Species to the marae/hapū/Iwi or Kaitiaki should be planned with them and could require a formal Pōwhiri and other cultural ceremonies.

Hirini Mead (2003) has developed a framework using Tikanga Māori and Mātauranga Māori to assess contentious issues to find a Māori position on these issues. This test and the proposed models below should form the basis for any decision-making process involving aa request by whānau to return the deceased Taonga Sample.

The following Tikanga Test should be offered to the whānau (or other group) requesting the return of the sample.

Test 1: The Tapu Aspect – Tapu relates to the sacredness of the person. When evaluating ethical issues, it is important to consider whether there will be a breach of tapu, if there is, will the gain or outcome from the breach be worth it.

Yes, there will be a breach of the individuals tapu. The breach can be mitigated with the fact that the sample will be stored in a culturally safe environment. The intended research of the sample will be of benefit to the whānau, hapū and Iwi of the individual or wider te ao Māori.

A question may be that the sample was provided for the betterment of their whānau/te ao Māori. Would this still be achieved?

Test 2: The Mauri Aspect – Mauri refers to the life essence of a person or object. In an ethical context, one must consider whether the Mauri of an object or a thing will be compromised and to what extent.

Yes, the mauri will be compromised to a certain extent. The long-term goal is to provide more protection of the mauri for the donor, their whānau, hapū, Iwi and environment.

 Test 3: The Take-utu-ea aspect – Take (Issue) Utu (Cost) Ea (Resolution). Take-utu-ea refers to an issue that requires resolution. Once an issue or conflict has been identified, the utu refers to a mutually agreed upon cost or action that must be undertaken to restore the issue and resolve it.

Results should be shared with the individual and plans to address equity issues created. An Annual open day should be held for participants and whānau to visit the lab facilities and this would be advertised through culturally appropriate media.

Test 4: The Precedent aspect.  This refers to looking back at previous examples of similar issues that have been resolved in the past. Precedent is used to determine appropriate action for now.

This will need to occur on a case by case basis as this technology and ethics are only recently being introduced and created.

Test 5: The Principles aspect.  This refers to a collection of other Māori principles or values that may enhance and inform an ethical debate

Issues such as those listed in the Community-Up Model: manaakitanga, mana, now, tika and whanaungatanga (Smith & Cram, 2001) or the Māori Data Ethical Model (Taiuru, K. 2018) should be considered.

Hybrids/GMO/GE involving Taonga Species

The following statement is from Ngāti Kahungunu tribe to the Waitangi Tribunal which highlights the need to consider Māui and his knowledge of genetics “For like much of the boosterism of gene research he (Māui) saw the opportunity to unravel the mysteries of life, to prolong it, and even change it. Yet in the excitement of new opportunity, he neglected the wisdom of the past and did not take the time to properly assess the risks. He knew that there might be dangers but assumed that he could minimize or control them. And he failed, because in a very basic sense he had not asked of death why do we need to know?” (Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Authority and Te Rūnanga Roia o Kahungunu, 2001).

In traditional Māori social society, there were rules of procreation. The pepeha “Honoa te pito ata ki te pito maoa” translates as “Join the raw end to the cooked end”. According to Grey “a rangatira (chief) often married a woman of lesser rank”. The saying, apparently, was the proverbial basis for such a union. Colenso suggests it also applies to the “allying of a weak or improvised tribe with one better-off, perhaps through intermarriage” (Brougham, 1975): (Colenso, 1879); (Grey & Solomon, 1857). Non-Human Species are no different, hence knowing and respecting the genealogy and local traditions allows for appropriate genetic modification and hybrid practices to be completed.

Centuries of genealogical and traditional knowledge regarding Taonga Species have been succeeded from generation to generation. Māori share a belief with many other Indigenous Peoples that species and germplasm are all intimately interrelated with each other and to human beings because of their genetic whakapapa.

There is an incorrect colonial argument perpetuated by New Zealand scientists and the New Zealand government that breeding or genetically modifying a non-Taonga Species/Exotic Species with a Taonga Species will not create another Taonga Species. Successive governments all over the world have applied the same argument to Indigenous Peoples who are descendants of mixed heritages.

While New Zealand legislation does not promote blood quantum with human beings, legislation perpetuates blood quantum doctrine with non-Human Taonga Species. Whakapapa rights with non-human Taonga Species are not recognised. The Plant Varieties Act 1987 does not recognise hybrid species that originated with a Taonga Species as being a Taonga Species. The modified species is referred to as a ‘Hybrid’. The Patents Act 2013 also does not state that any biological material from a Taonga Species requires Māori Advisory Committee approval.

If modifying genes from a non-Taonga Species with a Taonga Species, then the same narrative and whakapapa considerations are still required. But it should be ascertained if the non-Taonga Species would likely be at odds with the Taonga Species in relation to whakapapa. An example is Kūmara and a prickly plant. In Māori epistemologies it is stated that the Kūmara is from the deity of peace and prickly plants represent war and other unpleasantries, therefore are from the deity of war Tūmatauenga. Therefore, you should not use genes from a Kūmara into another species to eradicate a non-Taonga Species pest.

Gene Drives are acceptable once the whakapapa of the taonga species are known. An ancient form of gene drives occurred within the Ngāi Tahu district of the South Island with a practice called whakawhiti kaimoanato. This practice used the Pōhā (Macrocystis pyrifera) to transport and propagate live seafood such as shellfish, starfish, and Pāua etc., to neighbouring cockle beds and other areas to assist reproduction of kai moana that were experiencing growth and reproduction issues. This customary practice was undertaken by those with intimate whakapapa knowledge of the Taonga Species and history of the geographical area.

Genetic modification is acceptable between some Taonga Species, but the whakapapa of each needs to be known to avoid conflicts in whakapapa.

With no legislative protection in New Zealand for non-Human Taonga Species, the protection of Taonga Species relies on Māori Data Sovereignty, the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights, and the Kyoto Protocol, yet these are not widely acknowledged or recorded in legislation by the New Zealand government.

Any variation and modification of a Taonga species with another non-Taonga/Exotic species will produce another Taonga Species. In the same manner that when a Māori and non-Māori human being procreates with each other, their offspring is still Māori as legally stated in New Zealand legislation. If multiple species are used to modify one or more non-Taonga Species the end product is still a Taonga Species. It is important to record where all of the Taonga Species were sourced from for the hybrid so that correct consultation with the kaitiaki can occur.

A Taonga Species has whakapapa to New Zealand and to Māori, whānau, hapū and Iwi regardless of parents and conception. While the same species may be found in other parts of the world, those species are not a taonga as they do not have a whakapapa and mauri from being in and on Papatūānuku.

While a certain Iwi may be the overall Kaitiaki in a western sense, the local hapū or whānau are the manawhenua and in many instances the rightful kaitiaki. Therefore, any species that reside or are taken from an iwi boundary are therefore under the auspices of the kaitiakitanga of the hapū or whānau, manawhenua, land trust or Iwi. Regardless of if Māori still own the land or not, it still contains wāhi tapu (sacred places) and mauri of the whānau, hapū and or iwi and these rights must be acknowledged and respected when using Taonga Species.

Because genetic Māori data has a mauri, whakapapa (geographic origins) the exact geographical location of the species that is to be genetically modified must be identified and recorded, not because of any system requirement or law, but because it is tikanga Māori. The responsibility is on the data collector to record where the genetic data came from, what the data is about, Iwi and hapū connections, and kaupapa Māori categories for metadata and to treat the data with respect.

By identifying the exact location will enable researchers and scientists to identify the appropriate marae, whānau, hapū or Iwi that must be consulted and engaged with before any further developments are completed. If it is not possible to ascertain the appropriate kaitiaki, marae, whānau, hapū or Iwi there are two options. Use the same species, but from a different geographical location, or speak to the closest identifiable marae, whānau, hapū or Iwi for further information. This step is essential to identify who to discuss any issues identified with Mead’s Tikanga Framework.

---

MĀORI CUSTOMARY RIGHTS FOR MAORI BIOLOGICAL DATA OWNERSHIP.

Introduction

There are two different kaupapa Māori frameworks required for Taonga Species. One for a human being Taonga Species and one for non-Human Taonga Species. This allows for the genealogical difference between the spiritual realm of Ranginui, Papatūānuku and the Māori spirit world, and the physical realms of the marae for human beings, and the fact that many iwi recognise a primary deity Tāne and his daughter Hine Ahuone, as the creator of human beings. Whereas non-human Taonga Species have departmental or tutelary deities and a myriad of secondary departmental or tutelary deities.

Usually, whakapapa is hierarchical. DNA is a combination of a multiple generations and their environmental impacts. Therefore, the two frameworks proposed in this research use a Nondirectional Cycle. This allows the representation of a continuing sequence of stages to show customary Māori genealogy and ownership in a circular flow. It also allows representation of Māori customary ownership rights that are communal as opposed to individual rights. Each genealogical entity has the same level of importance in regard to genetic data.

The following two frameworks are generic to many Iwi. Some Iwi have slight variances with the genealogical entities which must be considered and acknowledged by researchers.

Māori Genetic Data Customary Ownership of the Ira Tangata Framework

Māori Genetic Data Ira Tangata Framework (Taiuru, 2020)

 

The blue lines which form a circle in the nondirectional cycle represents wairua, mauri and mātauranga that is inherited from each genealogical entity to the next forming DNA. This is the overall basis of whakapapa.

Te Kore created natural entities in Te Ao Māori including Ranginui and Papatūānuku who are the parents of the departmental or tutelary deities. Rangi and Papa bore Tāne, the creator of the first human Hine Ahuone.

Hine Ahuone committed suicide upon finding out who her lover was also her father, so she became Hine-nui-i-te-pō which is also represented in the same box as Hine Ahuone. This represents both the living and the dead.

Tiki the first son of Tane and Hine Ahuone, is a shared atua to all human beings. Tiki is the deity of reproduction of human beings. An atua may be another Taonga Species or a natural phenomenon. Atua are intergenerational and exist in Te Ao Māori.

Every Māori individual person descends from an ancestor who has at least one marae. Each marae has at least one Iwi that is comprised of multiple hapū which is made up from multiple whānau who are made up from multiple individuals.

All of these genealogical entities, in the same manner as a wharenui represents a genome. Unlike a physical taonga such as land, water, jewellery, etc., which can be taken away from its origin; whakapapa and mauri cannot be taken away from the DNA. It continues to grow and is inherited to the next generation.

 

Māori Genetic Data Customary Ownership of non-Human Taonga Species Framework

Māori Genetic Data Taonga Species Framework (Taiuru, 2020)

 

Whānau, hapū, Iwi and individual Māori have a spiritual, historical, genealogical, and an emotional bond and relationship with the natural environment including to land and water. A species that grows in or on the land or water in an iwi district contains a part of the mauri from that iwi.

A customary Māori perspective of the land and natural resources such as rivers, mountains, ocean etc., within an iwi boundary is that it is a part of the person, hapū, whānau and Iwi that reside on that land. The bond is seen in the following pēpeha; Ko Papatūānuku, Ko Ranginui ngā mātua o te tangata: We are all descendants of Ranginui and Papatūānuku; “Ko au to awa, Te Awa ko au: I am the river, the river is me” (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015, p. 3); “Ko au to moana, ko te moana au: I am the ocean, the ocean is me” (Matthews, 2018).

The blue lines which form a circle in the nondirectional cycle represents wairua, mauri and mātauranga that is inherited from each genealogical entity or species to the next forming a DNA.

Te Kore created everything in Te Ao Māori including Ranginui the father of the sky and Papatūānuku earth mother.

Rangi and Papa are the parents of the departmental or tutelary deities. Of their more than 70 children, were the primary departmental or tutelary deities of all Taonga Species.

Each of the four primary departmental or tutelary deities of non-human Taonga Species had their own children who became deities of all of the Taonga Species.

Māori ancestors identified a number of Taonga Species in their Pacific homeland to bring with them on their voyaging waka to New Zealand. These Taonga Species include: Aute (Broussonetia papyrifera), Hue (Lagenaria siceraria), Karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus), Kiore (Rattus exulans), Kōpī (Corynocarpus laevigata), Kuri (Canis lupus familiaris), Kuru (Artocarpus incisa), Paratawhiti (Maritta fraxinea), Perei (Gastrodia Cunninghammi) and (Orthoceras strictuum), Pukeko/Pakura (Porphyrio melanotus), Kakariki (Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae), Kūmara (Ipomoea batatas), Taro (Colocasia esulenta), Tī pore (Cordyline fruticose) and Whikaho (Dioscorea sp) (Buck, 1949).

Many Taonga Species are associated with other atua and or human tīpuna. An example from the following pēpeha is one example. Ngā mahi a Paikea whaka-Tangaroa; The deeds of Paikea, who took on himself the power of Tangaroa. The refers to Paikea having come to Aotearoa on a whale (Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae) rather than in a canoe (White & Didsbury, 1887, p. III.15).

Many Taonga Species have a direct genealogical link to an iwi or are a kaitiaki to an Iwi or a hapū. In some instances, the Taonga Species is an atua to a specific whānau. Mōteatea, pēpeha, pūrākau and waiata often express Taonga Species qualities, comparisons, and behaviours and lessons for human beings.

As with a human DNA, all of these genealogical entities, in the same manner as a wharenui represents a genome.

Māori Data Sovereignty

Over recent 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 inherited 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. Despite the global Indigenous model being used, the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights 2010 has also been omitted, despite the New Zealand government being a signatory to the Declaration and a large effort by government to implement it.

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 (any format) 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).

---

ENGAGMENT WITH KAITIAKAI, WHĀNAU, HAPŪ and IWI

Guiding Principles for Māori Biological Data Research

It is essential that Indigenous Peoples are full participants in research projects that concern them, share an understanding of the aims and methods of the research, and share the results of this work” (The Australian Institute, 2012). In Te Ao Māori, transparency is accomplished with a customary practice of recognising whakapapa.

The sacred courtyard in front of a meeting house is Te Maraenui-atea-o-Tūmatauenga (the realm of Tūmatauenga the Māori War god). Going on the marae means entering into an encounter situation, where challenges are met, and issues are debated. The marae atea is the place where issues about genetic research and data storage occur. The discussions should be open and frank. Once the discussions are complete, both parties should be able to progress to the specimen extraction stage.

Guided by the direction of the research interviews and the key themes that emerged, the following guiding principles were modified from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ethical guidelines (The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2003, pp. 85-94) and Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (The Australian Institute, 2012).

 

Consultation, negotiation, and free and informed consent are the foundations for Genomic research.

Researchers must accept a degree of Māori community input into and control of the research process. This also recognises the obligation on the Crown to give something back to the community. It is ethical practice in any research on Māori issues to include consultation with those who may be directly affected by the research or research outcomes whether or not the research involves fieldwork.

The responsibility for consultation and negotiation is ongoing. Consultation and negotiation are a continuous two-way process.

Ongoing consultation is necessary to ensure free and informed consent for Māori genetic data research, and of maintaining that consent. Research should be staged to allow continuing opportunities for consideration of the design build by Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and Iwi.

Consultation and negotiation should achieve mutual understanding.

Consultation involves an honest exchange of information about aims, methods, and potential outcomes (for all parties). Consultation should not be considered as merely an opportunity for researchers to tell Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi what they may want. Being properly and fully informed about the aims and methods of Māori genetic data research, its implications, and potential outcomes, allows Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi to decide for themselves whether to oppose or to embrace the research and the outcomes.

Māori knowledge systems and processes must be respected.

Acknowledging and respecting Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi knowledge systems (mātauranga Māori) and processes are not only a matter of courtesy but also recognition that such knowledge can make a significant contribution to the research and outcomes. Researchers must respect the cultural property rights of Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi in relation to knowledge, ideas, cultural expressions, and cultural materials (mātauranga Māori).

The intellectual and cultural property rights of Māori must be respected and preserved.

Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi cultural and intellectual property rights are part of the heritage that exists in the cultural practices, resources, and knowledge systems of te Ao Māori, and that are passed on in expressing their cultural identity. Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi intellectual property is not static and extends to things that may be created based on that heritage. It is a fundamental principle of research to acknowledge the sources of information and those who have contributed to the research.

Negotiation should result in a formal agreement for the conduct of a research project, based on good faith and free and informed consent.

The aim of the negotiation process is to come to a clear understanding, which results in a formal written agreement, about research intentions, methods and potential data that is produced. Good faith negotiations are those that have involved a full and frank disclosure of all available information and that were entered into with an honest view to reaching an agreement. Free and informed consent means that agreement must be obtained free of duress or pressure and fully cognisant of the details, and risks of the proposed research. Informed consent of the people as a group, as well as individuals within that group, is important.

The rights of Māori and Iwi to self‑determination must be recognised.

Genetic Māori data research must be conducted in accordance with the Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including principles of Indigenous peoples’ rights to self‑determination and to full participation (appropriate to their skills and experience) in developments that impact on their lives.

Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and Iwi have the right to full participation appropriate to their skills and experiences in research projects and processes.

Research projects should be based on an awareness of the rights of Māori Peoples, whānau, hapū and iwi to full participation in decision making in matters that affect their rights.

Research on Māori issues should incorporate mātauranga Māori. This is often most effectively achieved by facilitating direct involvement in the research from the start of a project.

If a participant withdraws, then it should mutually agree, what should be done with the contributions made to the research project up to the date of the withdrawal.

Consent and Ethics

All documentation, policies and procedures should include and strictly follow a Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi clause or similarly named clause that contains the following points and information.

(a)       The testing and or storage organisation recognises its Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti obligations and will ensure that all decisions reflect this commitment.

(b)       The testing and or storage organisation recognises its Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti obligations and will ensure that all actions regarding Māori DNA reflects a Te Ao Māori perspective whether that is physical, mental, or spiritual.

(c)       Any partnerships with international organisations will include a Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti clause.

(d)       Recognition of The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples GA Res 61/295 (2007) 2010. The testing and or storage organisation will adhere to the Declaration, in particular the following sections:

1,2,3,4,5,8,9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37,38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46.

A Māori expert advisory group should be established to contribute Māori views and ensure Treaty compliance of all governance and processes.

Māori have continued to maintain customs that they have developed and nurtured for hundreds of generations. Therefore, hiring a specialist advisor(s) will be necessary in order to fulfil the basic requirements of ethical guidelines. Choosing the right people is also necessary. By just saying you have a Māori person on staff, or the board is not acceptable. Any Māori representative should be comfortable with all of the frameworks and principals in these guidelines as a minimum requirement.

It cannot be assumed that a Māori donor or kaitiaki of a Taonga Species who is not culturally aware and technologically savvy, does not want to be fully informed of the cultural safety risks of genetic and genomic research.

As there is no one Māori world view, fully informed consent should be given to the person providing, or the group authorising the sample. It could be that the donor was not brought up with Māori culture and customary beliefs, or the donor could have a scientific comprehension, who discredits religion and spirituality and information that cannot be proved or disproved in a western perspective. Or it may be that the donor has not thought about the implications or does not understand the implications. Or it could be that the Māori donor does not care or want to know. But it is an ethical obligation for a researcher/scientist to ensure that the hau and mauri of the donor is upheld and respected. The full disclosure needs to cater to all Māori views.

Whenever possible, consent should be sought from the participants whose biological data is to be extracted and analysed. In practice this means it is not sufficient to simply get participants to say “Yes”. The participant also needs to know what it is that they are agreeing to. So far as is practicable, it should be explained what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participant(s) to have their genetic data used.

To ensure the hau and mauri are properly protected and noting that there is not one Māori world view, a full and open discussion needs to occur including a consent form that fully informs the donor of both modern day, future, and customary issues. This is the marae atea aspect of the process. It is expected that any issues are discussed and rectified at this stage so that going forward there will be peace and unity.

In order that consent, be ‘informed’, consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants setting out information about the proposed system (in lay terms in English and te reo Māori) along with details about the staff involved and how they can be contacted. This aspect in Te Ao Māori is termed kanohi ki kanohi (face to face); though contact will likely be in other forms than in person communication.

The disclosure needs to consider customary ownership rights and tikanga, modern day issues such as data sovereignty, storage, Artificial Intelligence, technologies that will allow for profiling as well as non-Māori religious values.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent. Where it is impossible, a similar group of people, whānau, hapū or iwi could be asked how they would feel if it was their genetic data being. If they think it would be OK, then it might be assumed that the real participants or Kaitiaki of the genetic data will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

There is an ever-increasing number of Māori students who have attended bilingual and full immersion Māori langue education institutes their whole lives, who are now entering the work force and becoming adults. This cohort expect tikanga and te reo Māori to be normalised. All disclosure documentation should be written in both English and Māori.

As part of the full, priory informed consent, it is recommended that all samples of the deceased human beings be offered back to the whānau or hapū of the deceased or disposed of in a culturally appropriate manner if Health and Safety is a concern.

A culturally appropriate manner could be as simple as a karakia by a Chaplain or Minister, or a more formal ceremony by the donor’s whānau, hapū, iwi or kaumātua.

The most appropriate model of informed consent for Māori genetic research is the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) model.

“Free, Prior and Informed Consent is a universal norm of international law as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2011), the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (International Labour Organisation, 1989), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montreal, 1992).

Free, Prior and Informed Consent allows Indigenous Peoples to give or withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories. For Māori, territories include customary iwi boundaries and the natural resources within the customary boundary. Once whānau, hapū, Māori or Iwi have given their consent, they can withdraw it at any stage. Furthermore, Free, Prior and Informed Consent enables Māori to negotiate the conditions under which the research will be designed, implemented, monitored, and evaluated. This is also embedded within the universal right to self-determination.

 

Subject	Description
Free	Consent given voluntarily and without coercion, intimidation, or manipulation. A process that is itself directed by the community from whom consent is being sought, unencumbered by coercion, expectations or timelines that are externally imposed.
Informed	Nature of the engagement and type of information that should be provided prior to seeking consent and also as part of the on-going consent process.
Prior	Consent is sought sufficiently in advance of any authorisation or commencement of activities.
Consent	Collective decision made by the right holders and reached through a customary decision -making processes of the communities.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). United Nations

 

Ethical Engagement Model for Gene Drives

The following Ethical Engagement model (based on the original table by Riley Taitingfong (2019) should be followed by researchers when engaging in a genetic modification involving or impacting on any Taonga Species.

Recommendation	Implementation
Te Tiriti considerations	i. Ensure that the principles of Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi are at the forefront of any engagement and decision making.
Centre Māori self-determination	i. Conduct field trials and open releases of organisms only when authorized by the appropriate kaitiaki, marae, whānau, hapū or iwi.
Replace the deficit model of engagement with a participatory approach.	i. Do no conflate unidirectional educational efforts (e.g., science communication) with participatory community engagement. ii. Recognise that consent is not guaranteed outcome of partnership (and pursue collaborative partnerships appropriate kaitiaki, marae, whānau, hapū or iwi regardless. iii. Model participatory practices after other appropriate kaitiaki, marae, whānau, hapū or iwi led research or other published best practices.iv. Share results and learnings with Māori.
Integrate Māori knowledge and values.	i. Identify culturally specific values ad concepts relevant to gene drives and risk assessment. ii. Draw on culturally specific values and knowledge to codesign making related to gene drive.

Ethical Engagement model

Ethical Engagement model for non-human Taonga Species

Every part of New Zealand, including all of its 700 plus outlying islands have traditional and customary boundaries recognised by whānau, hapū and Iwi. New Zealand statutory regulations and legislation do not recognise many of those boundaries, but whānau, hapū and Iwi still do. The whānau, hapū and Iwi are the kaitiaki of all Taonga Species and natural resources within those traditional and customary boundaries.

It is important to know the exact or near to exact geographical location that a Taonga Species or their remains were taken from. This applies to both living, dead and parts of a Taonga Species. If the Taonga Species was taken from a water way, the details are still required. Many physical locations have iwi histories and or are sacred. It could be an unmarked cemetery, a place of worship, an ancient battleground, a significant cultural spot, a place where afterbirth is buried. There is a myriad of reasons for the land, water way or species being sacred.

The following is an identification framework to begin as soon as Taonga Species or their remains are sourced.

Taonga Species Consultation Model

 

Any Taonga Species or biological material from a Taonga Species will require engagement with its Kaitiaki.

The following engagement Framework is a guide that is suitable for most Iwi. Some exceptions could be with post settlement Iwi who have corporate structures.

Identify who the kaitiaki and or manawhenua are of the area the Taonga Species was retrieved from. It is likely that this stage will require identifying the marae or Iwi.

Notify the kaitiaki and or manawhenua that you have a Taonga Species from their boundary and of your intentions.

Consult the kaitiaki or manawhenua. Depending on the Taonga Species and the research involved, you may be given permission on the spot. Others will want to form a relationship with you and want intimate details of what you will do with the Taonga Species and what cultural protocols you will follow. This will also likely involve returning any part of the Taonga Species back to the kaitiaki once you have completed your research.

Kaitiaki Engagement Model

 

When engaging with kaitiaki, the following principles model should be considered to ensure cultural safety of kaitiaki and a meaningful relationship.

Tikanga	Explanation
Tino Rangatiratanga; Centre Māori self-determination	i. Conduct field trials and open releases of organisms with gene drive only when authorized by indigenous community partners. ii. Recognise that consent is not a guaranteed outcome of partnership (and pursue collaborative partnerships with Iwi, hapū, Māori Peoples regardless).
Mana; Replace the deficit model of engagement with a participatory approach.	i. Do not conflate unidirectional educational efforts (e.g., science communication) with participatory community engagement. ii. Pursue participatory approaches to community engagement (e.g., collaboration, mutual learning, community expertise). iii. Model participatory practices another other indigenous-led research.
Tikanga; Integrate mātauranga Māori	i. Identify culturally specific values and concepts relevant to gene drive research and risk assessment. ii. Draw on culturally specific values and knowledge to codesign questions in continued research and decision making related to gene drive.

Kaitiaki Principles

Transparency and engagement

“It is essential that Indigenous Peoples are full participants in research projects that concern them, share an understanding of the aims and methods of the research, and share the results of this work” (The Australian Institute, 2012). In Te Ao Māori, transparency is accomplished with a customary practice of recognising whakapapa.

The sacred courtyard in front of a meeting house is Te Maraenui-atea-o-Tūmatauenga (the realm of Tūmatauenga the Māori War god). Going on the marae means entering into an encounter situation, where challenges are met, and issues are debated. The marae atea is the place where issues about genetic research and data storage occur. The discussions should be open and frank. Once the discussions are complete, both parties should be able to progress to the specimen extraction stage.

 

 

Key Questions with digitised DNA

The following are a number of key questions that should be considered and documented prior to digitising DNA from a Taonga Species. These questions should then be discussed with the donor or the kaitiaki as a part of a full informed process that recognises the Te Tiriti/Treaty of Waitangi obligations and the mana and rangatiratanga of the donor or kaitiaki.

• What is the origin of the DNA?
• How was the issue of multiple iwi affiliations addressed?
• In which country will the data be stored?
• Where is the storage solutions provider headquartered?
• Does the transmission of data go through countries outside of New Zealand?
• Do you sell data to third parties?
• Do you sell data as personal identifiable data?
• Do you sell data as patterns on an aggregated level?
• Do you use third-party cookies? Does this include SoMe (social media) cookies and SoMe logins?
• If you use third-party cookies, are your users fully aware that your cookie uses leads to sharing of data about your users with third parties and do they agree with it?
• Do you require and control the data ethics of your subcontractors and partners?
• Purpose of the data storage?
• Access and licence types?
• What testing and preventative measures are in place to monitor a Te Tiriti obligation?
• What are all of the foreseeable risks of the system and its data?
• Benefits of the system and or data to Māori, iwi, hapū, whānau and individuals?
• A participant (or whānau if deceased) should be able to track where their samples and data are and what they are being used for. This means samples should not be irreversibly de-identified.
• The whānau, hapū and iwi of the samples for each specific project should be recorded, so that participants / whanau should be able to request a copy of their own data
• For Genomic Data Governance, the Māori Advisory Group for the study must be involved in setting the analysis plan and have oversight of the dissemination of findings.

 

APPENDICIES

Appendix A: Introduced Taonga Species

Appendix B: Class 4 Atua relating to Taonga Species.

Appendix C: Atua of the human body

Appendix D: Indigenous Declarations

Appendix E: New Māori words for gene research

 

 

 

Appendix B: Class 4 Atua Relating to Taonga Species

Ahirangi and Mata-Kupenga atua of spiders (Roberts, 2013)

Aka-kura, a child (Kūmara) of Pani ( Best, 1972, p. 289).

Anuhe caterpillar took its bright markings from the Mackerel fish ( Best, 1972, p. 994).

Anuhu (caterpillar) son of Whanui (star) who Whanui told to attack the Kūmara (Best, 1972, p. 832).

Anurangi, a child (Kūmara) of Pani (Best, 1972, p. 289).

Elephant fish           A goddess called Te maro o Hine te iwaiwa. A cousin of Māui’s Wind aunties (Tikao & Beattie, 1939, pp. 38-39).

Haere-awaawa (Go through hollows) deity of Weka (Orbell, 1995, p. 33).

Haumia Atua of the medicinal property of Ti Kouka ( Roberts, 2013)

Haumia of fern root (Orbell, 1995, p. 41).

Hinamoki is the father of native rats on the West Coast of North Island.

Hine Kaikomako the deity of the Kaikomako tree (Pennantia corymbose) ( Best, 1972, p. 795).

Hine Karoro (child of Ra the sun god), deity of sea gulls ( Best, 1972, p. 789).

Hine Mata-iti, (Pani the mother of Kūmara) mother of kiore ( Best, 1972, p. 831).

Hine Ruru deity of Owls (MorePork) (Orbell, 1995, p. 63).

Hine Tara (child of Ra the sun god), deity of sea tern ( Best, 1972, p. 789).

Hine-mahanga origin of the Tutu ( Best, 1972, p. 765).

Hine-mataiti is the mother of the native rats in the East Coast of the North Island (Orbell, 1995).

Hine-moana deity of seaweed that shelter fish (Orbell, 1995, p. 86).

Hine-rau-whārangi the deity of plant development and fertility (Orbell, 1995, p. 60).

Hine-te-waiwai. Ko te rangiura a Hine-te-waiwai. The red bark of Hine-te-waiwai. An honorific term for Tōtara bark used to store preserved Kūmara (Smith, 1914, p. 67).

Hinewaoriki is the Maid-of-small-forests. She gave birth to twins in the form of the Kahika and Matai trees (Buck, 1949, p. 450)

Huna origin of the Harakeke (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Hunga (son of Rangi and Papa) is the father of lice in Ngāti Porou (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Hurumanu of sea birds (Orbell, 1995, p. 33).

Ika-tere (son of Tangaroa) is the father of fish (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Irawaru deity of dogs (Orbell, 1995, p. 76).

Kaiwaiwaru  Tutelary god of all feathered creatures (Tikao & Beattie, 1939, p. 42).

Kakaho origin of the Toetoe ( Best, 1972, p. 765).

Kakapo          . The kakapo skins were of high value in Māori society. A party of young Ngai Tahu chiefs known as Wharaunga puraho nui, the sons of prominent Ngai Tahu chiefs who were brought up in the North by their Kahungunu family in their desire for more Kakapo skins, approached the mountain Whataarama, each chief claimed a peak of the range for themselves so they could acquire Kakapap. Moki, upon claiming a peak stated “That is mine, so that my daughter Te Ao Tukia may possess a kilt of Kakapo skins to make her fragrant and beautiful. Tane Tiki stated “Mine, that the Kakapo skins may make a kilt for my daughter Hine Mihi. Hikatutae stated “Mine, that the Kakapo skins may make a girdle for my daughter Kaiata. Another member of the party called Moki, with the assistance of his slave who climbed a tree to seek the best spot for Kakapo stated, “My mountain Kura Tawhiti, Ours!”. Descendants of Moki have enjoyed rights to the Kakapo there ever since. (Stack, 1996)

Kāore e ārikarika te tama a Tūmataika e rere nei! What a flock of the children of Tūmataika are flying yonder. Tūmataika is the progenitor of Kākā Brown Parrot (Best, 1909, p. 257); (Brougham, 1975, p. 7) ; (Best & Andersen, 1977, p. 193).

Karihi (Punga’s brother) gave rise to other ‘repulsive’ offspring, among them certain fish (frostfish, barracuda, conger eel and freshwater eel), along with lizards and insects (Best, 1982b, p. 261; 433)

Kia tū tangata te ara ki Mokoia. Let the way be open to Mokoia. Regards the Kūmara god Te Matuatonga that reposed on Mokoia island. In the planting season, tribes of the Rotorua district journeyed thither to touch their seed Kūmara to some effigy, sometimes said to have been brought from Hawaiki. The ceremony was calculated to ensure fertility and to protect against frost and blight (Reed & Turner, 1973, p. 56).

Ko ngā kākano o roto I a au heu utu wai mō āku mokopuna; ko tētahi o ngā kākano he tāne, tēnā e kore ia e whai uri. The seeds within are to provide water for my descendants; one of those seeds is a male but shall not bear fruit. The saying concerns the Hue (Gourd). In traditional knowledge, Pūtēhue, the offspring of Tāne is the personified form of the Gourd (Best, 1908, p. 186); ( Best, 1976a, p. 245); ( Best, 1996, p. 782); (Best, 1982a, p. 274).

Ko te nanua pounamu, ko te mīmiha. Like the sea fish the red Moki, a wonderer. A saying for Kiwa’s daughter Hinewehe, who, according to Smith, lived in the dark ages before Māui. The species named Chironemus sp., is a kelpfish with a patterned body and serves as a metaphor for beauty. Smith n.d. b:33; (Williams, 1908).

Ko Whaene tipi kai. Whaene that nips food. Whaene, or Punga, is the mythical ancestor, or personification of the shark. The saying is applied to one unsuccessful in fishing, suggesting the catch has already been caught and eaten by the shark (Grey & Solomon, 1857, p. 52) ;( Williams, 1908, p. 30),

Kua tata ngā pō o ngā Pōtiki a Rehua. The nights of the children of Rehua have arrived. This means that the time for Rehua, or summertime has arrived. This phrase was applied to the Maomao (Scorpis violaceus) and Moki fish (W. L. Williams, 1875); (Buck, 1926, p. 33).

Kukuraho is the penis of Tuna (Best, 1972, p. 834).

Kumukumu (offspring of Punga and Tu-te-wehi-wehi) deity of Gurnard

Mā te aha e hahau te tama a Mumuwhango. Who shall seek after the son of Mumuwhango? Mumuwhango is the parent of the Tōtara tree (from which canoe were made) hence the name stood for a fast sailing canoe (White & Didsbury, 1887, p. III.40).

Mahuru (Spring) was related to Shining Cukoos as they were his messengers (Orbell, 1995, p. 51).

Māia of the gourd (Orbell, 1995, p. 98).

Manu a Rehua. Bird of Rehua. Name of the Kēkerewai Chafer Beetle/Mānuka Beetle (Pyronota festiva). In relation to the beetle being abundant in the summer time and used as a food source (Best, 1902, p. 63).

Mapau (shrub, Myrsine Urvillei) the maro of Whanui (Star) wands or branchlets were used in Kūmara rites (Best, 1972, p. 833).

Matatu, a child (Kūmara) of Pani

Matuatonga deity of fertility of Kūmara (Mokia Island) (Orbell, 1995, p. 113).

Moa   The bones were used for tokens signifying the importance of the owner or for religious ceremonial work. Examples of the necklaces are found in museums. Other stories talk of the Moa being used as a pet in addition to a food source (Pybus, 1954, p. 35).

Moekahu (daughter of Houmea-taumata and Tautu-porangi), dog god of Ngati Pōtiki and Kahuyngunu (Best, 1972, p. 861).

Mōkehu (Child of Haumia) of bracken fonds and the Mosquitos and sand-flies that live on bracken (Orbell, 1995, p. 50).

Moko (caterpillar) son of Whanui (star) who Whanui told to attack the Kūmara (Best, 1972, p. 832).

Moko-hiku-waru (Moko-hiku-aru, Mojo-hiku-waru) deity of certain reptiles. See Tū -tangata-kino (Orbell, 1995, p. 120).

Mokopapa    Tutelary god of all tree Lizards (Tikao & Beattie, 1939, p. 42).

Monehu (descendant of Haumia) deity of sand-flies and mosquitos (tuākana) (Best, 1972, p. 993).

Mosquito and sand-fly are the messengers of Hine-nui-te-po (Best, 1972, p. 833)

Mumuhanga gave birth to the Totara tree (Buck, 1949, p. 450)

Nehutai, a child (Kūmara) of Pani

Ngā ika a Wahitiri. The fishes of Whaitiri. Refers to the mythological origin of fish as the offspring of Whaitiri. Best states it is in reference to snow, hail, frost and ice (Best, 1899). Best 1899:107; ( Best, 1977, p. 917).

Ngā taero o Kupe, e ngā rōrī o te whare o Uenuku. The obstructions which Kupe found were the knots Uenuku used to fasten his door. The obstruction referred to are supplejacks. When knotted by one person is put to a practical use by another. Today when the phrase is quoted alone, it refers to supplejacks (Kareao), Brambles or Bush Lawyer (Tātarāmoa), Speargrass (Tūmatakuru) and stinging nettles (Ongaonga) which made travel so difficult when Kupe arrived. They are now used to symbolise mental difficulties and obstructions (Grey, 1853, p. 105); (Grey & Solomon, 1857) (Williams, 1971, p. 356).

Pani (Some stories say Pani was the mother of Māui and his brothers, others say sister of Tangaroa. Other variations at pg 825) the mother of the many varieties of Kūmara. Rongo-Māui the father who stole it from Whānui (Vega Star) and impregnated Pani. (Ngati Awa). Māui-whare-kino the husband of Pani (Porou) (Orbell, 1995, p. 131). Williams states Pani Tinaku was her full name. (Best, 1972, p. 825).

Parauri – deity of the Tūī (Orbell, 1995, p. 33) & (Buck, 1949, p. 450)

Para-whenua-mea is the mother of glow worms (and rivers that flow from the mountains and flood waters) that live near water. She is the daughter of Tane and Hine-tūpari-maunga. (Orbell, 1995, p. 134)

Pari-kiokio (Tangotango is the parent), parent of the Kiokio Fern (Lomaria procera) (Best, 1972, p. 782).

Patea, a child (kumara) of Pani

Peketua the father of Tuatara (East Coast). Peketua and his wife Mihamiha are the parents of all reptiles and insects (Orbell, 1995, p. 137).

Peketua, Punaweko and Hurumanu (Tane Māhuta’s brothers) created Tuatara, Land birds and Sea birds by fashioning clay into an egg. They then sought advice from Tane Mahuta who told them to endow the clay egg with life. Peketua produced the tuatara from the shell that he had fashioned from clay. Hurumanu created sea birds and Punaweko created land birds (1927, pp. 290-291).

Pio, a child (Kūmara) of Pani

Poananga the originator of Clematis plant with large white flowers offspring of Rehua and Puanga. Rūamoko caused the birth (Best, 1972, p. 836).

Pou created Kahikatea and Māhaki-rau brought it to the land (Orbell, 1995, p. 95).

Pou, god of fish at the mouths of rivers that flow into the sea. Seaweed was the offering to Pou. That seaweed is called Makanga-a-rimu (Ngata, 2004, p. 45).

Puahou the originator of the tree (Panax arboretum) offspring of Rehua and Puanga. He is the most important of the children. Rūāmoko caused the birth (Best, 1972, p. 836).

Puarangi, a child (Kūmara) of Pani

Puhi-kai-naonao is an eel that represents all wasting sickness (Best, 1972, p. 836).

Punaweko Atua of birds (Best, 1922, p. 76)

Punaweko Deity of forest birds (Orbell, 1995, p. 33).

Punga and Karihi on the west coast (ugly brothers of Tāwhaki) are the fathers of sharks and reptiles (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Punga is referred to as a woman who copulated with Tane and had insects. Including the giant weta who is known as Pungā’s Weta (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Punga is the atua of insects and vermin (Buck, 1949, p. 450)

Punga is the father of sea mammals such as the sea lion in Ngai Tahu (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Punga the father of all ugly creatures including Stingrays, reptiles, sharks. In Te Arawa he is the son of Tangaroa. Punga had two children Ika-tere and Tū-te-wehiwehi (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Pū-tē-Hue (last born of Tane and Rauāmoa) the mother of the Gourds. Pū-tē-Hue was married to either Tangaroa or Tāwhirimatea and had a daughter Rona. During the quarrels with Rangi and Papa, Pū-tē-Hue took side with Rongo (Kūmara) and Haumia (Fernroot). These three are peaceable plants. (Orbell, 1995, p. 42).

Raukata-uri (also her sister Raukata-Uri) the originator of games, music, and dancing.  has a flute that is believed to be the case moth. She is referred to as the Cicada. The mountain FoxGlove found on Taranaki Mountain is her gourd plant. The hanging spleenwort fern is her ringlets of hair (Orbell, 1995, p. 152).

Raupō roots is the penis of Tuna (Best, 1972, p. 834).

Rehua and Pekehawani produced Rūhi whose offspring consists of all food cultivated by man (Best, 1972, p. 821).

Rehua Atua of Hapuku, Ponga’ including Mamaku (Cyathea medullaris), Te Poka (C. dealbata) and Katote (C. smithii) ( Roberts, 2013)

Rehua is the creator of the Huia (Phillipps, 1963)

Rehua is the origin or caretaker of Koko (Tui) (Best, 1972, p. 769).

Rehua the parent of Īnanga, Marearea, Pahore, Koputea, Porohe, Pahore, Koeaea and other small fresh water fish. Koko bird and the Kaiherehere eel. Also, of the small green beetle found on Manuka and the Tutaeruru a flying beetle (Best, 1972, p. 820).

Rongo, son of Rangi and Papa is the father of Kūmara. In Ngāti Porou the name is Rongo-marae-roa. (Orbell, 1995)

Rongo-maraeroa Atua of Kūmara (Best, 1922, p. 76)

Ruaea brought lice to Aotearoa on the Takitimu waka (Orbell, 1995, p. 158).

Rūāmoko. Ko te tini o Rūāmoko. The many of Rūāmoko. A figurative way of referring to lizards. Turnbull n.d. 17; (Williams, 1908, p. 35).

Ruruotangi-akau Personification of the Ake (Dodonea viscosa), Kahikātoa (Leptospermum scoparium) and other hard woods used for making weapons (Ngata & Jones, 1990)

Ruruotangi-akau Personification of the Ake (Dodonea viscosa), Kahikatoa (Leptospermum scoparium) and other hard woods used for making weapons (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 165)

Tahu-mate, the originator of the originator of the bloom of the Panax arboretum or the first Puahou that blooms. The offspring of Rehua and Puanga. Rūāmoko caused the birth (Best, 1972, p. 836).

Tane and Apunga begat shrubs and small birds (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Hine-wao-riki begat the Kahika and Matai trees (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Mango-nui and begat Tawa and Hinau trees (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Mumuhanga begat the Totara (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Punga begat the Kotukutuku Patate trees and all insects (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Rere-noa bore the Rata as well as all climbing, parasitic and epiphytic plants (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Ruru-tangi-akau and begat the Ake and Kahikatoa trees (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Te Pu-whakahara begat the Maire and Puriri trees (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Tu-kapua begat the Tawai, Kahikawakawa and other trees (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane and Tutoro-whenua bore Haumia deity of rhizomes of fern ( Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tane Moehau is the mother of Tatare – Dogfish (Stack, 1996, p. 18).

Tangaroa      God of the ocean. Karakia was performed to him by voyagers for good weather and calm waters (Tikao & Beattie, 1939, p. 38)

Taranga is another name for Pani (Kūmara) who the daughter of Māui was. Tuna and Taranga created the Kūmara (Best, 1972, p. 833).

Taro is the penis of Tuna (Best, 1972, p. 834).

Tawake-toro origin of the Manuka (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Tawhara-nui origin of the Kiekie (Best, 1972, p. 765).

Te Arawaru Atua of shell-fish (Best, 1922, p. 76)

Te hao te kai a te aitaka a Tapuiti. Eels are the descendants of Taputiti. Tapuiti was the wife of Te Rakihouia, so of Rākaihautū, who constructed many eel weirs on the South Island (Beattie, 1915, p. 142).

Te kanohi o Tāwhaki. The eyes of Tawhaki. As Tawhaki fell from the spirit world he plucked out his eyes and threw them on to the Rātā (Metrosideros robusta). This, according to the story, was the origin of the red blooms of the Rata tree and accounts for the saying still used by the Mātaatua people for them. Another version attributes for the red blooms of the Pōhutukawa as well to the blood of Tāwhaki which fell on them (Best, 1908, p. 222); (Best, 1972, p. 916).

Te mokopuna a Terepunga. The offspring of Terepunga. The Shag or Cormorant was known as such (Best & Andersen, 1977, p. 344).

Te Monehu Atua of fern fonds – the rust-coloured dust (spores) found on the undersides of the fronds ( Roberts, 2013)

Te rau o Hunā. The leaf of Huna. Applied to dressed flax fibre, also to fine garment made of this flax (Best, 1909, p. 231); (Williams, 1971, p. 328).

Te rau o Mauri. The leaf of Mauri. Poetical name for Taro (Williams, 1971, p. 328).

Te rau o Pāpoua. The leaf of Pāpoua. Applied to rough flax, or a rough cape (Best, 1909, p. 231); (Williams, 1971, p. 328).

 

 

Te whānau a Punga. The family of Punga. The father of Punga was Tangaroa. His progeny included all reptiles, sharks and even insects. The term was also extended to an ugly person (Williams, 1908, p. 35).

Tiki Tuna, deity of Tuna (Orbell, 1995, p. 227).

Tinirau is the rangatira of all fish (Orbell, 1995, p. 214).

Tinirau shaped the nose of the Sole Fish (Tikao & Beattie, 1939, p. 38).

Toroa-ma-hoe, a child (Kūmara)

Toronu (caterpillar) son of Whanui (star) who Whanui told to attack the Kūmara (Best, 1972, p. 832).

Tū -tangata-kino deity of certain reptiles. Moko-hiku-waru (Orbell, 1995, p. 120).

Tuna deity of Eels (Orbell, 1995, p. 53).

Tū-te-koropanga the originator of plant prickly and obstruction plants such as Ongaonga (Tree Nettle), Bush Lawyer and Spiky Matagouri (Orbell, 1995, p. 234).

Tū-te-wehiwehi the father of reptiles (Orbell, 1995, p. 144).

Tu-te-wehiwehi, originator of insects including spiders (Orbell, 1995, p 144).

Tutunui, offspring of Tinirau is the origins of Whales (Best, 1972, p. 773).

Uru-te-ngangana and Rehua are atua of Ti Kouka’s various unique properties (Roberts, 2013)

Waiha, a child (Kūmara) of Pani.

Whare-rimu (Child of Kiwa and Hine-Moana) deity of Seaweed that shelter fish (Orbell, 1995, p. 86).

 

 

Appendix C: Atua of the Human Body

Hina. Ko Hina whakapau tangata. Hina the consumer of people. A Te Rarawa Pepeha. Māui suggests that Hina lets men die and live again as does Hina herself. She refuses, wishing death to be the cause of grief and wailing (White & Didsbury, 1887, pp. II,80).

Korokoiewe, atua of birth (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Mauhi, Taiepa, Mokonui, Ti-whaia/Te-whaia are the attendants of Korokoiewe (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Mokotiti, atua of the chest (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Purakau, atua of witchcraft (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Ranginui and Papatūānuku. Nā Rangi taua, nā Tūānuku e takoto nei; ko ahau tēnei, ko mea a mea. We are descended from Rangi and Tūānuku; as for me, I am so-and-so, child of so-and-so. This was the prescribed formula for responding to a chief who welcomed one to his village. The stranger established their common ancestry and then related essential elements of their own lineage (Brougham, 1975, p. 70).

Rauru, atua of the hair of the head (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Rongo, atua of the left side of the body (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Rongomai, atua of the lungs (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Rongo-mai-taha-nui a deity who personify the ability to absorb readily, the teachings of the house of sacred learning (Ngata & Jones, 1990, p. 17).

Rongo-mai-taha-nui a deity who personify the ability to absorb readily, the teachings of the house of sacred learning (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 17).

Rongo-mai-taha-rangi – Deity who personify the ability to absorb readily, the teachings of the house of sacred learning (Ngata & Jones, 1990, p. 17).

Rongo-mai-taha-rangi – Deity who personify the ability to absorb readily, the teachings of the house of sacred learning (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 17).

Rua-te-hotahota – Atua of knowledge, thoughts, and deep thoughts. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 1990, p. 49).

Rua-te-hotahota – Atua of knowledge, thoughts, and deep thoughts. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 49).

Rua-te-mahara – Atua of knowledge, thoughts, and deep thoughts. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 1990, p. 49).

Rua-te-mahara – Atua of knowledge, thoughts, and deep thoughts. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 49).

Rua-te-Pukepuke – Atua of knowledge, thoughts, and deep thoughts. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 1990, p. 49).

Rua-te-Pukepuke – Atua of knowledge, thoughts, and deep thoughts. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 49).

Taitai, atua of hunger (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Te aitanga a Tiki. The offspring of Tiki. A term for human beings. Tiki from the world of chaos (Pō) married Ea of the world of light (te ao mārama). They had Kurawaka who married Tāne-nui-a-rangi, the beginning of the human race (Best, 1903, p. 17).

Te aitanga a Tiki. The offspring of Tiki. This is applied to human beings. Tiki from the world of Chaos (Po) married Ea of the world of light. They had Kurawkaka who married Tane-nui-a-rangi, the beginning of the human race (Best, 1903, p. 17).

Tiki. Ko ngā uri koe o Tiki. You are of the descendants of Tiki. Tiki is the personification of procreative energy and is often described as the progenitor of the human race, which is sometimes described as Te Aitanga a Tiki, the progeny of Tiki. (Rangikāheke, 1849:113)

Tiki. Ngā uri o Tiki. The descendants of Tiki. These are the human race as Tiki was its progenitor (Colenso, 1879, p. 91).

Tonga, atua of the forehead (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Tonga-meha, atua of the eyes (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Tua Waihananga – Prodigy of learning. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 1990, p. 49).

Tua Waihananga – Prodigy of learning. Progeny of Tangaroa (Ngata & Jones, 2006, p. 49).

Tupari (inaewa, Tupua), atua of the liver (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Tupe, atua of the calf of the leg (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

Tura. Kua tau ngā taru o Tura. The weeds of Tura have appeared. The weeds of Tura are grey hairs (Best, 1905).

Tutangata-kino, atua of the stomach (Salmond, 2017, p. 256).

 

 

Appendix D: Pacific Instruments

1. Treaty For A Lifeforms Patent-Free Pacific And Related Protocols 1995
2. Traditional Biological Knowledge, Innovations And Practices Act 2000
3. Statement of Bioethics Consultation Tonga National Council Of Churches Centre Nukuoalofa, Tonga 2001
4. Model Law for The Protection Of Traditional Knowledge And Expressions Of Culture 2002
5. Paoakalani Declaration 2003

 

 

Appendix E: Indigenous Declarations

1. The Kari-Oca Declaration, The World Conference of Indigenous Peoples on Territory, Environment and Development. Brazil, May 30, 1992 (The World Conference of Indigenous Peoples on Territory Environment and Development, 1992).
2. The Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Whakatane, Aotearoa New Zealand June 1993.
3. Declaration of Indigenous People of the Western Hemisphere Opposing the Human Genome Diversity Project World Council of Indigenous Peoples Resolution on the Human Genome Diversity Project. Phoenix, Arizona on February 19 of 1995 (Original Peoples of the Western Hemisphere of the Continents of North & Central and South America, 1995).
4. Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women, NGO Forum, UN Fourth World Conference on Women Huairou, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China. 7 September 1995 At The Indigenous Women’s Tent, Huairou, Beijing, China (Asia Indigenous Women’s Network, 1995).
5. The “Heart of the Peoples” Declaration, From the North American Indigenous Peoples Summit on Biological Diversity and Biological Ethics. August 7, 1997. Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Nations’ Territories Fort Belknap Reservation State of Montana, U.S. (Roy. Taylor, 1997).
6. Declaration from Kuna Yala, Panama Organizations and Indigenous nations present in the Workshop on the “Human Genome Diversity Project”, Ukupseni, Kuna Yala, 12-13 November 1997 (Organizations and Indigenous nations present in the Workshop on the Human Genome Diversity Project, 1997).

 

 

7. Resolution of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana (Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 1998).
8. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 2000)
9. The International Cancun Resolution of Indigenous Peoples, 5th WTO Ministerial Conference – Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 12 September 2003 (International Representatives of Indigenous Peoples, 2003)
10. Hawaiian Civic Clubs Resolution Urging the University of Hawai`i to Cease Development of the Hawaiian Genome Project, Adopted November 15, 2003 at the 44th Annual convention of Hawaiian Civic Clubs at Nukoli`i, Kauai, Hawai`I (Hawaiian Civic Clubs Resolution, 2003).
11. Collective Statement of Indigenous Peoples on the Protection of Indigenous Knowledge Agenda Item 4(e): ratified in the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, May 12, 2004, New York City (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2004b).
12. Declaración Colectiva de Pueblos Indígenas sobre la Protección del Conocimiento Tradicional Tercera Sesión, Foro Permanente de la ONU para las Cuestiones Indígenas ratified in New York, 10-21 May 2004 (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2004a).

 

 

13. The Manukan Declaration of the Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network Manukan, Sabah, Malaysia, 4-5 February 2004 (Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, 2004).

• . Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Government Of Samoa And The Regents Of The University Of California, Berkeley For Disposition Of Future Revenue From Licensing Of Prostratin Gene Sequences, An Anti-Viral Molecule (Sāmoa and Berkeley University, 2004)

 

 

Appendix F: United Nations instruments

1. Bonn Guidelines 1992
2. The Convention on Biological Diversity 1992
3. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights 1997
4. International Declaration on Human Genetic Data 2003
5. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005
6. Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights to Genetic Resources and Indigenous Knowledge 2007
7. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Sixth Session, May 14-25, 2007 Collective Statement on an International Regime on Access and Benefit Sharing
8. Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing 20108

 

 

Appendix G: New Māori words for gene research

 

English	Māori	Whakapapa
bio~, biological	koiora	takenga mai: koiora – life
bioethics	matatika koiora	takenga mai: matatika – right, straight; koiora – biology
biological control	whakatina koiora	takenga mai: whakatina – overcome, confine, put under restraint; koiora biology
biological warfare	pakanga ā-koiora
biology	mātai koiora	takenga mai: mātai – inspect, examine; koiora – life
chromosome	pūira	(takenga mai: pū – source, origin; ira – gene
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)	pītau ira	takenga mai: pītau – perforated spiral carving, young succulent shoot of afern; ira – gene
dominant gene	ira tāpua	takenga mai: ira – gene; tāpua – prominent, significant, stand out
female gamete	pūtau hema-uwha	takenga mai: pūtau – cell; hema – pudenda [external genetial organs]; uwha – female
gene	ira	takenga mai: ira – life principle
gene pool	mātāira	takenga mai: mātā – heap, layer; ira – gene) (kupu kē atu: puna ira
gene pool	puna ira	kupu kē atu: mātāira
genetic engineering, genetic modification	raweke ira
genetic inheritance	iranga tuku iho
genetic mutation	irakē	takenga mai: ira – gene; kē – different, of another kind
genetics (field of study)	mātai iranga
genome	huinga ira
meiosis	whāiti pūira	takenga mai: whā – causative prefix; iti – small; pūira – chromosome) (kupu kē atu: maiohi [kupu mino]
mitosis	whāū pūira	takenga mai: whā – causitive prefix; ū – be firm, fixed; pūira – chromosome) (kupu kē atu: maitohi [kupu mino]
recessive gene	ira huna
trait (genetic) –	huaira	takenga mai: hua – product; ira – gene

 

 

REFERENCES

1. H. Mc Lintock (Ed.). (1966). An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand.

Ancestry.Com. (2019). Ancestry Surpasses 15 Million DNA Customers.

Angwin, J., & Valentino-DeVries, J. (2012). New tracking frontier: Your license plates. The Wall Street Journal.

Anmarkrud, J., & Lifjeld, J. (2017). Complete mitochondrial genomes of eleven extinct or possibly extinct bird species. Molecular Ecology Resources, 17(2), 334-341.

Arbour, L., & Cook, D. (2006). DNA on Loan: Issues to Consider when Carrying Out Genetic Research with Aboriginal Families and Communities. Public Health Genomics, 9(3), 153-160.

Avila, R. (2018). Resisting digital colonialism. Internet Health Report 2018.

Awatere, A., & Dewes, T. K. (1969). Te kawa o te marae. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, Dept. of Anthropology.

Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga whakaaro: Key concepts in Māori culture. Auckland, N.Z: Oxford University Press.

Beaton, A., Hudson, M., Milne, M., Port, R. V., Russell, K., Smith, B., Wihongi, H. (2017). Engaging Māori in biobanking and genomic research: a model for biobanks to guide culturally informed governance, operational, and community engagement activities. Genetics in Medicine, 19(3), 345.

Beattie, H. (1915). Traditions and legends. Collected from the natives of Murihiku. (Southland, New Zealand). Journal of the Polynesian Society, 24.

Beattie, H., Anderson, A., & Otago, M. (1994). Traditional lifeways of the Southern Maori: the Otago University Museum ethnological project, 1920. Dunedin [N.Z.]: University of Otago Press in association with Otago Museum.

Beijing Declaration of Indigenous Women. (1995).

Benton, R. (2012). Te Matapunenga as a compendium of the history of ideas. Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, 13/14, 38-50.

Benton, R., Frame, A., Meredith, P., & Te Mātāhauariki, I. (2013). Te Mātāpunenga: a compendium of references to the concepts and institutions of Māori customary law. Wellington: Victoria University Press.

Best, E. (1899). Notes on Maori mythology, by Elsdon Best. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 8.

Best, E. (1901). Maori Magic: Notes upon Witchcraft, Magic Rites, and various Superstitions as practised or believed in by the Old-time Maori. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 34.

Best, E. (1902). Food products of Tuhoeland: being notes on the food-supplies of a non-agricultural tribe of the natives of New Zealand; together with some account of various customs, superstitions, &c., pertaining to foods.

Best, E. (1903). Maori marriage customs: being notes on ancient Maori customs, ritual and sociological, connected with courtship, marriage, and divorce, together with some account of the Levirate, and of many superstitious beliefs, and ancient animistic myths connected with the same, as held and preserved by the Maori peoples of the Tuhoe Tribe.

Best, E. (1905). Maori eschatology.

Best, E. (1908). Maori Forest Lore. (Report).

Best, E. (1909). Māori Forest Lore. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z:

Best, E. (1910). Māori religion: notes on the religious ideas, rites, and invocations of the Māori people of New Zealand. Retrieved from Brisbane:

Best, E. (1922). Some aspects of Maori myth and religion (Vol. 1). Wellington Govt. Print.

Best, E. (1924). Māori religion and mythology: being an account of the cosmogony, anthropogeny, religious beliefs and rites, magic and folk lore of the Māori folk of New Zealand.

Best, E. (1924). The Maori. Wellington Govt. Print.

Best, E. (1925). Maori agriculture: the cultivated food plants of the natives of New Zealand, with some account of native methods of agriculture, its ritual and origin myths (Vol. 9). Wellington, NZ: Board of Maori Ethnological Research for the Dominion Museum.

Best, E. (1927). Honorific terms, sacerdotal expressions, personifications, etc., met with in Maori narrative. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 36(143).

Best, E. (1930). Maori agriculture. Cultivated food-plants of the Maori and native methods of agriculture. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 39 (156), 346-380.

Best, E. (1942). Forest lore of the Maori: with methods of snaring, trapping, and preserving birds and rats, uses of berries, roots, fern-root, and forest products, with mythological notes on origins, karakia used, etc (Vol. 14). Wellington, N.Z: Polynesian Society in collaboration with Dominion Museum.

Best, E. (1972). Tuhoe, the children of the mist: a sketch of the origin, history, myths and beliefs of the Tuhoe tribe of the Maori of New Zealand, with some account of other early tribes of the Bay of Plenty district. Wellington, N.Z.: Published for the Polynesian Society by A. H. & A. W. Reed.

Best, E. (1976). Maori agriculture: the cultivated food plants of the natives of New Zealand, with some account of native methods of agriculture, its ritual and origin myths (Vol. no. 9). Wellington: Government Printer.

Best, E. (1976). Maori religion and mythology: being an account of the cosmogony, anthropogeny, religious beliefs and rites, magic and folk lore of the Maori folk of New Zealand (Vol. nos. 10-11.). Wellington, New Zealand A. R. Shearer.

Best, E. (1977). Māori religion and mythology: being an account of the cosmogony, anthropogeny, religious beliefs and rites, magic and folklore of the Māori folk of New Zealand. Section I. no. 10(Book, Whole).

Best, E. (1982b). Māori religion and mythology: Part 2 / being an account of the cosmogony, anthropogeny, religious beliefs and rites, magic and folk lore of the Māori folk of New Zealand. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z:

Best, E. (1996). Tuhoe, the children of the mist: a sketch of the origin, history, myths, and beliefs of the Tuhoe tribe of the Maori of New Zealand, with some account of other early tribes of the Bay of Plenty district (4th ed. Vol. 6). Auckland [N.Z.]: Reed.

Best, E., & Andersen, J. C. (1977). Forest lore of the Māori: with methods of snaring, trapping, and preserving birds and rats, uses of berries, roots, fern-root, and forest products, with mythological notes on origins, karakia used, etc. Wellington, N.Z: Govt. Printer.

Bible Society New Zealand. (2012). Paipera Tapu. Wellington: Ngā Ringa Hāpai i te Paipera Tapu ki Aotearoa.

Biggs, B. (1970). Maori marriage: an essay in reconstruction (Vol. 1). Wellington: Reed for the Polynesian Society.

Biggs, B. (1981). The complete English-Maori dictionary. Auckland, N.Z.;Wellington, N.Z.;: Auckland University Press.

Biggs, B. (1989). Humpty Dumpty and the Treaty of Waitangi Chapter. In I. H. Kawharu (Ed.), Waitangi: Māori and Pākehā perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi (pp. 300-311). Auckland, N.Z.: Oxford University Press.

Biggs, B., & Barlow, C. (1990). Me ako taatou i te reo Maaori: he whakamaaramatanga mo ngaa mahi ako i te reo Maaori. Auckland, N.Z.: C. Barlow, Billy King Holdings.

Black, T. (2014). Te Waka Mātauranga Framework.

Black, T., Murphy, H., Buchanan, C., Nuku, W., & Ngaia, B. (2014). Enhancing mātauranga Māori and global indigenous knowledge. Wellington, New Zealand: NZQA.

Bradford, H. (2008). Kiore – Pacific rats. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.

Brougham, A. (1975). Maori proverbs. Auckland [N.Z.]: Reed.

Buck, P. (1926). The Maori craft of netting.

Buck, P. (1949). The coming of the Maori. Wellington: Maori Purposes Fund Board.

Buerki, S., & Baker, W. (2016). Collections‐based research in the genomic era. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 117(1), 5-10. doi:10.1111/bij.12721

Bursztynsky, J. (2019). More than 26 million people shared their DNA with ancestry firms, allowing researchers to trace relationships between virtually all Americans: MIT. CNBC.

Cadwallader, P. (1975). Distribution and ecology of the Canterbury mudfish, Neochanna burrowsius (Phillipps) (Salmoniformes: Galaxiidae). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 5(1), 21-30.

Calman, R. (2012). Māori education – mātauranga – Kaupapa Māori education. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.

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

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2000).

Claw, K., Anderson, M., Begay, R., Tsosie, K., Fox, K., & Garrison, N. (2018). A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1-7.

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

Colenso, W. (1879). On the moa: contributions towards a better knowledge of the Maori race: part 2. A few remarks on a cavern near `Cook’s well,’ at Tolaga Bay, and on a tree (Sapota costata), found there.

Collective Declaration of Indigenous Peoples on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge. (2004a).

Collective Statement of Indigenous Peoples on the Protection of Indigenous Knowledge Agenda Item 4(e): Culture. (2004b).

Collier-Robinson, L., Rayne, A., Rupene, M., Thoms, C., & Steeves, T. Embedding indigenous principles in genomic research of culturally significant species: a conservation genomics case study.

Cooper, G. (2012). Kaupapa Maori research: Epistemic wilderness as freedom? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 64-73.

Cormack, I. (1995). He Kupu arotake: A list of terms for education evaluators: Maori-English, English-Maori.

Cowan, J. (1910). The breadfruit-tree in Maori tradition, by James. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 19(2), 94-96.

Cram, F., Pihama, L., & Barbara, G. P. (2000). Maori and genetic engineering: research report (Vol. 1). Auckland, N.Z: IRI, University of Auckland.

Cunningham, E., Cameron, V., Evans, J., Irvine, V., Pitama, S., & Robertson, P. (2007). The development of guidelines for handing samples and specimens collected for research involving Maori. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 120, NO 1264, 117-119.

Dean, J. (2005). Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics. Cultural Politics, 1(1), 51-74.

Declaration of Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere Regarding the Human Genome Diversity Project, (1995).

Didsbury, G. (1890). An act to extend the provisions of “The native schools sites act, 1880”.

Duff, A. S. (2016). Rating the revolution: Silicon Valley in normative perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 19(11), 1605-1621.

Durie, M. (1984). Te Whare Tapa Whā

Durie, M. (2005). Mana tangata: culture, custom and transgenic research. NZ science teacher (108), 15-18.

 

 

Dussex, N., Von Seth, J., Knapp, M., Kardailsky, O., Robertson, B., Dalén, L., & Naturhistoriska, R. (2019). Complete genomes of two extinct New Zealand passerines show responses to climate fluctuations but no evidence for genomic erosion prior to extinction. Biology letters, 15(9), 20190491.

Edwards, M. (1990). Mihipeka: early years. Auckland, N.Z: Penguin.

Eichelbaum, T. (2001). Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. (Report). Ellis, N., & Robertson, N. (2016). Whakapapa of Tradition: One Hundred Years of Ngato Porou Carving, 1830-1930: Auckland University Press.

Esvelt, K. (2017). Could daisy drive help make New Zealand predator-free? Responsive Science.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2016). Free, Prior and Informed Consent Manual for Project Practioners.

Foster, J. B., & McChesney, R. W. (2014). Surveillance capitalism: Monopoly-finance capital, the military-industrial complex, and the digital age. Monthly Review, 66(3), 1.

Fox, K. (2020). The Illusion of Inclusion — The “All of Us” Research Program and Indigenous Peoples’ DNA. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(5)

Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital Labour and Karl Marx: Routledge.

Gemmell, N. J., Rutherford, K., Prost, S., Tollis, M., Winter, D., Macey, R., Edmonds, H. (2020). The tuatara genome reveals ancient features of amniote evolution. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2561-9

Gene Watch. (2000). Privatising Knowledge and Patenting Genes – The race to Control Genetic Information. GeneWatch UK, 11.

Ghorbani, F., Moradi, L., Shadmehr, M. B., Bonakdar, S., Droodinia, A., & Safshekan, F. (2017). In-vivo characterization of a 3D hybrid scaffold based on PCL/decellularized aorta for tracheal tissue engineering. Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications, 81, 74-83.

Government Chief Data Steward. (2018). Data Strategy and Roadmap For New Zealand.

Grainger, N., Collier, K., Hitchmough, R., Harding, J., Smith, B., & Sutherland, D. (2014). Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater invertebrates, 2013: Department of Conservation.

Grant, B. (2019). What A Long Strange Decade It’s Been. The Scientist.

Grey, G. (1853). Ko nga moteatea, me nga hakirara o nga Maori: he mea kohikohi mai. Wellington: Printed by Robert Stokes.

Grey, G. (1995). Polynesian mythology: and ancient traditional history of the New Zealand race: as furnished by their priests and Chiefs / by Sir George Grey. Ko nga mahi a nga tupuna Māori: he mea kohikohi mai (Vol. no. 1). Hamilton, N.Z: University of Waikato Library.

Grey, G., & Solomon, S. (1857). Ko nga whakapepeha me nga whakaahuareka a nga tipuna o Aotea-roa: Proverbial and popular sayings of the ancestors of the New Zealand race. Cape Town: Saul Solomon & Co., Steam Printing Office.

Grove, N. (1985). Te Whatanui: traditional Māori leader: a thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in Māori Studies.

Gudgeon, W. E. (1905). Maori religion. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 14(3), p 107-130.

Guyatt, V., McMeeking, S., & Tipene-Matua, B. (2006). Māori Perspectives on Prebirth Genetic Testing: Exploring Diverse Perspectives and Addressing Legal and Regulatory Issues. Unpublished report for the Law Foundation Research Project on the Regulatory Impact of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis.

Hawaiian Civic Clubs Resolution. (2003). A resolution.

Healy, S. M., & Huygens, I. (2015). Treaty of Waitangi: questions and answers (Fifth revis 2015 ed.). Christchurch: Network Waitangi.

Heinemann, J. A., & Coray, D. S. (2018). Report on the Exploratory Fact-Finding Scoping Study on@ Digital Sequence Information@ on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Henare, A. J. M., Holbraad, M., & Wastell, S. (2007). Thinking through things: theorising artefacts ethnographically. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon;New York;: Routledge.

Henare, M. (1998). Koru of Maori Ethics Model.

Hendricks-Sturrup, R., & Lu, C. Y. (2019). Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Data Privacy: Key Concerns and Recommendations Based on Consumer Perspectives. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 9(25). Hudson, M., Beaton, A., Milne, M., Port, W., Russell, K., Smith, B., Uerata, L. (2016a). He Tangata Kei Tua Guidelines for Biobanking with Māori: Te Mata Hautū Taketake – Māori & Indigenous Governance Centre, University of Waikato.

Hudson, M., Health Research Council of New, Z., & Pūtaiora Writing, G. (2010). Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori research ethics: a framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Auckland, N.Z: Health Research Council of New Zealand on behalf of the Pūtaiora Writing Group.

Hudson, M., Southey, K., Uerata, L., Beaton, A., Milne, M., Russell, K., Port, W. (2016). Key informant views on biobanking and genomic research with Maori. The New Zealand Medical Journal (Online), 129(1447), 29.

Hunn, J. K. (1957). Report on secretariat organisation and methods of work of the South Pacific Commission: by J.K. Hunn: South Pacific Commission.

Hutchings, J. (2004a). Tradition and Test Tubes. Recoding nature: Critical perspectives on genetic engineering

Hutchings, J., & Reynolds, P. (2005). The Obfuscation of Tikanga Maori in the GM Debate.

IBM (2014). A world made with data. Made with IBM. Retrieved

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (1969). American Convention on Human Rights.

International Labour Organisation. (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. In.

Kang, H.-W., Lee, S. J., Ko, I. K., Kengla, C., Yoo, J. J., & Atala, A. (2016). A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nature biotechnology, 34(3), 312.

 

 

Kaufman, L., & Egender, J. (2019). Unnatural Selection. Changing an Entire Species, 1(3), 62 mins.

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

Keegan, T. T. (2000). Tikaŋa Māori, Reo Māori ki te Ipuraŋi”. ‘Māori Culture & Language On the Internet. Seminar Series of the Department of General and Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from

King, M. (1973). On the trail of the fading moko. Te Maori, 5(1).

King, M. (1978). Tihe mauri ora: aspects of Maoritanga. Wellington: Methuen New Zealand.

King, P., Cormack, D., & Kōpua, M. (2018). Oranga mokopuna: A tāngata whenua rights-based approach to health and wellbeing. MAI Journal: A New Zealand Journal of Indigenous Scholarship, 17(2).

Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. P., & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 6-28.

Kohere, R. T. (1951). He konae aronui: Maori proverbs and sayings. Wellington, NZ: A.H. & A.W. Reed.

Kolopenuk, J. (2020). Miskâsowin: Indigenous Science, Technology, and Society. Genealogy (Basel), 4(1), 21.

Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an agenda: ANU Press.

Lambert, D. M., Shepherd, L. D., Huynen, L., Beans-Picón, G., Walter, G. H., & Millar, C. D. (2009). The molecular ecology of the extinct New Zealand Huia. PLoS ONE, 4(11), e8019-e8019.

Lambert, D., Shepherd, L., Huynen, L., Beans-Picón, G., H Walter, G., & D Millar, C. (2009). The Molecular Ecology of the Extinct New Zealand Huia (Vol. 4).

Linder, C. (2020). 23andMe May Have Used Your DNA to Develop a New Drug. Popular Mechanics.

 

 

Maanaki Whenua. (2020). Ngā Tipu Whakaoranga.

Mahuika, A. (2010). Apirana Mahuika interview with Lawrence Wharerau, Ngā Taonga Whitiāhua, Series One, Episode 6, Michele Bristow, kaihautu, Eruera Morgan, Kaihautu Matua, Māori Television. Mahuika, N. (2015). Re-storying Māori Legal Histories: Indigenous Articulations in Nineteenth-Century Aotearoa New Zealand. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 2(1), 40-66.

Mahuika, N. (2019). A Brief History of Whakapapa: Māori Approaches to Genealogy. Genealogy, 3(2), 32.

Mangakahia, H. (1900). He Kimihanga he Rapunga i te Take o te Ngakau Pouri. Te Puke ki Hikurangi, 3(19), 1.

Marsden, M., & Henare, T. A. (1992). Kaitiakitanga: a definitive introduction to the holistic world view of the Māori.

Marsden, M., & Royal, T. A. C. (2003). The woven universe: selected writings of Rev. Maori Marsden. Otaki, N.Z: Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden.

MBIE. (2017). The Advanced Genomics Research Platform. Retrieved from

Mead, A. (1996). Genealogy, Sacredness, and the Commodities Market. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(2), 46.

Mead, A. (1997). Resisting the Gene Raiders. New Internationalist.

Mead, A. (1998). Sacred Balance. He PuKenga Korero, 3(2), 22-28.

Mead, S. M. (1997). Landmarks, bridges and visions: aspects of Maori culture: essays. Wellington, N.Z: Victoria University Press.

Mead, S. M. (2003). Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values. Wellington, N.Z: Huia.

Mead, S. M. (2016). Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values (Revis ed.). Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Mead, S. M. (2016a) The Sweetness of the Kūmara/Interviewer: J. Murray. Te Ahi Kaa, Radio New Zealand.

Mead, S. M. (2016b). Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values (Revis ed.). Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Mead, S. M., & Grove, N. (2001). Ngā pēpeha a ngā tīpuna: The sayings of the ancestors / nā Hirini Moko Mead rāua ko Neil Grove. Wellington [N.Z.]: Victoria University Press.

Mead, S. M., & McCredie, A. (1985). Te Maori: Maori art from New Zealand collections (Rev ed.). Auckland, N.Z: Heinemann in association with the American Federation of Arts.

Mejias, U. (2019). [BigDataSur] Some thoughts on decolonizing data.

Memorandum Of Understanding Between The Government Of Samoa And The Regents Of The University Of California, Berkeley For Disposition Of Future Revenue From Licensing Of Prostratin Gene Sequences, An Anti-Viral Molecule, (2004).

Metge, J. (1995). New growth from old: the Whanau in the modern world. Wellington, N.Z: Victoria University Press.

Moorfield, J. C. (2011). Te aka: Māori-English, English-Māori dictionary and index (New expand ed.). Auckland, N.Z: Pearson.

Murphy, N. (2011). Te Awa Atua: Menstruation in the Pre-Colonial Maori World: An Examination of Stories, Ceremonies and Practices Regarding Menstruation in the Pre-Colonial Maori World: Based on a Masters Thesis. (Master of Arts). Waikato University,

Neill, M. (2013). Return of the Moa: Is our Law ready for extinction that’s not forever? (Bachelor of Laws (Honours)). University of Otago – Te Whare Wananga o Otago, Otago.

New Zealand Parliament. (1907). Tohunga Suppression Act.

New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2014). Te Urewera Act.

Ngata, A., & Jones, P. T. H. (2006). Nga moteatea: he maramara rere no nga waka maha = The songs: scattered pieces from many canoe areas. Part III /collected by A.T. Ngata. Auckland [N.Z.]: Polynesian Society.

Ngata, A., Buck, P. H., & Sorrenson, M. P. K. (1986). Na to hoa aroha: From your dear friend : the correspondence between Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Peter Buck, 1925-50 (Vol. 1). Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland University Press in association with the Alexander Turnbull Library Endowment Trust and the Maori Purposes Fund Board.

Ngata, Apirana. (2004). Ngā Mōteatea The Songs: Part One.

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Authority and Te Rūnanga Roia o Kahungunu. (2001). Submission to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.

O’Regan, T. (1987). Who Owns the Past? Change in Maori Perceptions of the Past. From the Beginning: The Archaeology of the Maori.

O’Biso, C. (1999). First light (New ed.). Auckland [N.Z.]: Reed.

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

O’Malley, V., & Harris, A. (2017). He Whakaputanga: the declaration of independence, 1835 (First ebook ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Archives New Zealand, Te Rua Mahara o Te Kāwanatanga.

Orbell, M. (1995). The illustrated encyclopaedia of Maori myth and legend. Christchurch, N.Z: Canterbury University Press.

O’Regan, H. (2001). Ko Tahu, ko au Kāi Tahu tribal identity. (Book, Whole).

Parata-Walker, Hekia. (2014). Te Mata Ira Ki Ngati Porou.

Parkyn, S., & Kusabs, I. (2007). Taonga and mahinga kai species of the Te Arawa lakes: a review of current knowledge-Koura.

Payne, D. (2020). The Hau of Kai Hau Kai. Special Issue: Proceedings of the Mahika Kai Conference 2019, 1(1), 1-14.

Payne, M. (2020). Transmitting Mātauraka Māori technologies into horticultural reality. Growing Kūmara in Te Waipounamu, 2019. Special Issue: Proceedings of the Mahika Kai Conference 2019, 1(1), 37-51.

Peloso, A., Dhal, A., Zambon, J. P., Li, P., Orlando, G., Atala, A., & Soker, S. (2015). Current achievements and future perspectives in whole-organ bioengineering. Stem cell research & therapy, 6(1), 107.

 

 

Phillipps, W. J. (1963). The book of the Huia. Christchurch: Whitcombe & Tombs.

Pihama, L. (2001). Tīhei mauri ora: Mana wahine as a kaupapa Māori theoretical framework. (PhD). Waikato University,

Pihama, L., Cram, F., & Walker, S. (2002). Creating Methodological Space: A Literature Review of Kaupapa Maori Research (Vol. 26).

Pihama, L., Southey, K., & Tiakiwai, S. (2015). Kaupapa rangahau: a reader: a collection of readings from the Kaupapa Māori Research workshop series led by Associate Professor Leonie Pihama and Dr Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai. Kirikiriroa; Ngāruawāhia; Auckland; Te Matenga Punenga o Te Kotahi, Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato.

Pohatu, T. W. (2004). Ata: growing respectful relationships. He PuKenga Korero, 8(1), 1-8.

Pollock, K. (2015). King Country region – Te Rohe Pōtae. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 6.

Prendergast-Tarena, E. R. (2008). He Atua, He Tipua, He Takata Rānei: The Dynamics of Change in South Island Māori Oral Traditions. (Masters). University of Canterbury,

Prendergast-Tarena, E. R. (2015). Indigenising the corporation: indigenous organisation design: an analysis of their design, features, and the influence of indigenous cultural values: a thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management at The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Pybus, T. A. (1954). The Maoris of the South Island. Wellington, N.Z: Reed.

Reed, A. W. (1974). Myths and legends of Maoriland. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed.

Reed, A. W., & Turner, D. (1973). Legends of Rotorua. Auckland [N.Z.]: Reed.

Regalado, A. (2018a). 2017 was the year consumer DNA testing blew up. MIT Technology Review.

 

 

Regalado, A. (2018b). Forecasts of genetic fate just got a lot more accurate. MIT Technology Review.

Regalado, A. (2019). More than 26 million people have taken an at-home ancestry test. MIT Technology Review.

Rewi, P. (2010a). Whaikorero: The World of Maori Oratory. GB: Auckland University Press.

Rewi, P. (2010b). Whaikōrero: the world of Māori oratory. (Book, Whole).

Richardson, P., Tuhiwai, T., Tuhiwai, R., Taiapa, J., Aporo, F. T., & Flavell, R. (1988). He tikanga marae: Guide to a marae : course materials for 46.112 Maori studies. Palmerston North, N.Z: Dept. of Social Anthropology and Maori Studies, Massey University.

Roberts, M. (2013). Ways of Seeing Whakapapa. A Journal of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies, 10(1).

Roberts, M., Haami, B., Benton, R., Satterfield, T., Finucane, M. L., Henare, M., & Henare, M. (2004). Whakapapa as a Māori Mental Construct: Some Implications for the Debate over Genetic Modification of Organisms. The Contemporary Pacific, 16(1), 1-28. doi:10.1353/cp.2004.0026

Robinson, S. T. (2005). Tohunga: the revival: ancient knowledge for the modern era. Auckland, N.Z.: Reed Books.

Royal, T. A. C. (1992). Te haurapa: an introduction to researching tribal histories and traditions. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z:

Ryan, P. M. (2012). The Raupō dictionary of modern Māori (Vol. 4th). North Shore [N.Z.]: Raupo.

Sadowski, J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1).

Salmond, A. (2017). Tears of Rangi: experiments across worlds. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montreal. (1992). The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing. Retrieved from

Shirres, M. P. W. (1986). An introduction to karakia. (PhD). The University of Auckland, Auckland.

Sidhu, R. (2019). Genomic Data, Blockchain and Money. Towards Data Science.

Sinclair, M., & Calman, R. (2012). The Raupō essential Māori dictionary: Māori-English, English-Māori (3rd ed.). Auckland, N.Z: Raupō.

Smith, P. (1896). The peopling of the North: notes on the ancient Maori history of the northern peninsula and sketches of the history of the Ngati-Whatua tribe of Kaipara. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 5.

Spiller, C., & Nicholson, A., (2017). Wakatu Incorporation: Balancing Kaitiaki Stewardship and Commerce. doi:10.4135/9781473999039

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism: John Wiley & Sons.

Stack, J. (1996). Traditional history of the South Island Maoris (Facsim. ed.). Christchurch [N.Z.]: Kiwi Publishers.

StatsNZ. (2013). Census QuickStats about Māori.

StatsNZ. (21017). Iwi Statistical Standard and Classification of Iwi and Iwi-related Groups.

Stirling, E., & Salmond, A. (1985). Eruera: the teachings of a Maori elder (Vol. [New].). Auckland [N.Z.]: Oxford University Press.

Strickland, R. R., & Fisheries, M. A. F. (1990). Nga tini a Tangaroa: a Maori-English, English-Maori dictionary of fish names (Vol. no. 5). Wellington [N.Z.]: MAF Fisheries.

Taituha, G. (2014). He kākahu, he korowai, he kaitaka, he aha atu anō? The significance oif the transmission of Māori knowledge relating to raranga and whatu muka in the urvival of korowai in Ngāti Maniapoto in a contemporary context. (Master of Arts). Auckland University of Technology,

Taiuru, K. (2015). Definition: Digital Colonialism.

Taiuru, K. (2017). Māori Data Sovereignty: A definition.

Taiuru, K. (2019). Affidavit to WAI 2522. In. Wellington: Waitangi tribunal.

Taiuru, K. (2020). Māori Data Ethical Framework.

TallBear, K. (2013). Genomic articulations of indigeneity. Social Studies of Science, 43(4), 509-533.

Tapsell, P. (1997). The flight of Pareraututu: An investigation of Taonga from a tribal perspective. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 106(4).

Tapsell, P. (2000). Pūkaki: a comet returns. Auckland [N.Z.]: Reed.

Tapsell, P. (2002). Marae and tribal identity in urban Aotearoa/New Zealand. Pacific studies, 25(1), 141-171.

Tapsell, P. (2017). Te Arawa – Origins. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.

Tau, T. M. (2001). Matauranga Maori as an epistemology. Histories, Power and Loss: Uses of the Past – A New Zealand Commentary

Tau, T. M. (2001). The death of knowledge: ghosts on the plains. The New Zealand Journal of History, 35(2), 131.

Tau, T. M. (2003). Ngā pikitūroa o Ngāi Tahu: The oral traditions of Ngāi Tahu. (Book, Whole).

Tau, T. M. (2017). Water rights for Ngāi Tahu: a discussion paper. no. 3;no. 3.;(Book, Whole).

Tauroa, H. (1989). A guide to marae: Te kawa o te marae. Wellington [N.Z.]: Trade Union Education Authority.

Tauroa, P. (2006). Māori phrasebook & dictionary (Rev. & updat ed.). Auckland [N.Z.]: HarperCollins.

Taylor, R. (1974). Te Ika a Maui: or, New Zealand and its inhabitants: illustrating the origin, manners, customs, mythology, religion, rites, songs, proverbs, fables, and language of the natives: together with the geology, natural history, productions, and climate of the country : its state as regards Christianity : sketches of the principal chiefs, and their present position (Facsim. ed.). Wellington, N.Z: A. H. & A. W. Read.

Te Arawhiti. (2018). Crown engagement with Māori.

Te Pipiwharauroa. (1909). He Powhiri. Te Pipiwharauroa.

Te Puni Kōkiri. (2001). He Tirohanga O Kawa Ki Te Tiriti O Waitangi: A Guide to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi As Expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal: Te Puni Kokiri.

Te Rito, J. (2007). Whakapapa : a framework for understanding identity. MAI Review(2).

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu & Department of Conservation. (2005). Te Waihora Joint Management Plan: Mahere tukutahi o Te Waihora. Retrieved from Christchurch, N.Z:

Te Taura Whiri I te Reo Māori. (2012). Guidelines for Māori Language Orthography.

The “Heart of the Peoples” Declaration. (1997).

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2003). Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter, 8(1), 85-94.

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2012). Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies.

The International Cancun Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, (2003).

The Law Commission. (2018). The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations. Issues Paper 43.

The Manukan Declaration, (2004).

The World Conference of Indigenous Peoples on Territory Environment and Development. (1992). Kari-Oca Declaration.

Tikao, T. T., & Beattie, H. (1939). Tikao talks: traditions and tales. Dunedin, N.Z: A.H. & A.W. Reed.

Tiramōrehu, M., Van Ballekom, M., & Harlow, R. (1987). Te Waiatatanga mai o te Atua: South Island traditions (Vol. 4). Christchurch, N.Z: Dept. of Maori, University of Canterbury.

Tregear, E. (1891). The Maori-Polynesian comparative dictionary. Wellington, N.Z Lyon and Blair.

Tregear, E. (2014). Māori-Polynesian comparative dictionary. Honolulu, Hawaii: ʻAi Pʼ̃ʺaku Press.

Tribal Council of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. (1998). A Resolution to Oppose the Human Genome Diversity Project and Condemning Unethical Genetic Research on Indigenous Peoples.

Tribunal, W. (2011). Ko Aotearoa tēnei: a report into claims concerning New Zealand law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z:

Tsosie, K. S., Yracheta, J. M., Kolopenuk, J. A., & Geary, J. (2021). We Have “Gifted” Enough: Indigenous Genomic Data Sovereignty in Precision Medicine. American journal of bioethics, 21(4), 72-75. doi:10.1080/15265161.2021.1891347

Ukupseni Declaration, Kuna Yala on the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP). (1997).

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (2007).

United Nations. (1965). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

United Nations. (1966a). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

United Nations. (1966b). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

United Nations. (2011). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(3), 909-921.

Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & society, 12(2), 197-208.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2003). Index to the record of inquiry, The indigenous flora & fauna claim (WAI 262): Statement of claim: photocopy of documents supplied by the Waitangi Tribunal (October 2003). Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z

Waitangi Tribunal. (2003). Index to the record of inquiry, The indigenous flora & fauna claim (WAI 262): Statement of claim: photocopy of documents supplied by the Waitangi Tribunal (October 2003). Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z

Waitangi Tribunal. (2011). Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, Te Taumata Tuarua. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z:

Waitangi Tribunal. (2011). Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, Te Taumata Tuatahi. Retrieved from Wellington, N.Z:

Waitangi Tribunal. (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. (2019). What is Indigeneity? Te Kaharoa, 12(1).

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

Walker, R. (1978). The Relevance of Maori Myth and Tradition. In M. King (Ed.), Tihei Mauri Ora Aspects of Maoritanga. Methuen New Zealand.

Wang, X., Ao, Q., Tian, X., Fan, J., Wei, Y., Hou, W., S., B. (2016). 3D Bioprinting Technologies for Hard Tissue and Organ Engineering. Materials. Materials, 9(10).

Wannan, O. (2022). Moves to limit pine would force landowners, Māori to forego ETS cash. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/128430481/moves-to-limit-pine-would-force-landowners-mori-to-forego-ets-cash

White, J., & Didsbury, G. (1887). The ancient history of the Maori, his mythology and traditions. Wellington: George Didsbury, Government Printer.

White, J., & Didsbury, G. (1887). The ancient history of the Maori, his mythology and traditions. Wellington: George Didsbury, Government Printer.

Wihongi, H. (2019). [DNA is a marae].

Wilcox, P. (2020). Genomic research and Indigenous data sovereignty – Expert Reaction.

Williams, H. W. (1908). He whakatauki, he titotito, he pepeha Turanga [N.Z.] : H.W. Williams, Te Rau Press, 1908.

Williams, H. W. (1957). A dictionary of the Māori language. Retrieved from Wellington (N.Z).

Williams, H. W. (1971). Dictionary of the Maori Language (7th ed.). Wellington, N.Z.: GP Publications.

Williams, H. W. (1971). Dictionary of the Maori language (7th ed.). Wellington, N.Z.: GP Publications.

Williams, H. W. (1975). A dictionary of the Maori language (7th, rev. and aug. by Advisory Committee on the Teaching of the Maori Language, Dept. of Education). Wellington: Govt. Printer.

Williams, H. W., & New Zealand. Advisory Committee on the Teaching of the Maori, L. (1992). A dictionary of the Maori language (7th. ed.). Wellington, N.Z: GP Publications.

Williams, W. L. (1875). Lessons in the English language for Maori schools. Wellington Geo. Didsbury, Govt Printer.

Winston, J. (2017). Ancestry.com takes DNA ownership rights from customers and their relatives. Think Progress, 2018.

Wolt, J. D. (2017). Chapter Twelve – Safety, Security, and Policy Considerations for Plant Genome Editing. In D. P. Weeks & B. Yang (Eds.), Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science (Vol. 149, pp. 215-241): Academic Press.

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75-89.

Zwart, H. (2009). From Utopia to Science: Challenges of Personalised Genomics Information for Health Management and Health Enhancement. Medicine Studies 1(2), 155-156.

[1] Pepeha is a medium by which sacred and profane knowledge is passed from one person to another regarding the speaker’s identity. It embraces charms, witticisms, figures of speech, boasts and other sayings (Williams, 1971, p. 274).

[2] https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/about/governance/policy/policies

[3]

[4] https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/the-university/how-university-works/policy-and-administration.html

[5] https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/policies-procedures/policies-procedures_home.cfm

[6] https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/about/governance/ucpolicy/

[7] https://www.otago.ac.nz/administration/policies/

[8] https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-education/maori-in-schooling/6040

[9] https://www.otago.ac.nz/christchurch/otago014331.pdf

[10] https://web.archive.org/web/20020809051129/http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/pub_e/conventions.htm

[11] https://www.taiuru.co.nz/karakia-or-cultural-appropriation/

[12] https://www.otago.ac.nz/mackenzie-cancer/tissue-bank/

[13] https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/losing-our-religion

[14] http://web.archive.org/web/20050207095136/http://whakaahua.maori.org.nz/kowhai.htm

[15] https://www.taiuru.co.nz/karakia-or-cultural-appropriation/