Taonga

In June 1985 a claim was lodged asking that the Māori language receive official recognition. It was proposed that the language be official for all purposes enabling its use as of right in Parliament, the Courts, Government Departments, local authorities and public bodies.[9]

In June 1986, the Waitangi Tribunal received the Wai 26 claim that the Treaty of Waitangi was breached by the Crown proceeding to introduce legislation related to Māori language before the delivery of the Tribunal's "Report on the Te Reo Maori Claim", and as a consequence, the Māori people would be denied their claims for radio frequencies and a television channel.[10] In June 1990 claim Wai 150 was lodged by Sir Graham Latimer on behalf of the New Zealand Maori Council. The claim was in respect of their rangatiratanga over the allocation of radio frequencies; the claim being that in the absence of an agreement with the Māori, the sale of frequency management licences under the Radiocommunications Act 1989 would be in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.[11] The Waitangi Tribunal amalgamated the Wai 26 with the Wai 150 claim,[12] with the final report of the Tribunal recommending that the Crown suspend the radio frequency tender process and proceed to negotiate with the iwi.[13]

In November 1996, various members of Te Roroa filed a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Maunganui block, the Waipoua Forest, Lake Taharoa and surroundings, and the Waimamaku Valley in Northland. A part of the Wai 38 claim related to taonga, in particular: wahi tapu "spiritual places of special significance to tangata whenua", and wakatupapaku (burial chests deposited in ana (caves and crevices)).

The Tribunal report delivered on 3 April 1992 found that the Crown had allowed Te Roroa’s taonga to be violated.[14]

The Wai 262 claim in the Waitangi Tribunal is a claim of rights in respect of Mātauranga Māori or Māori knowledge in respect of indigenous flora and fauna. The claimants commissioned a report from Professor D. Williams on traditional ecological knowledge, ethnobotany and international and New Zealand law on intellectual property and conservation.[15]

On 2 July 2011 the Tribunal released its report into the Wai 262 claim: "Ko Aotearoa Tēnei" (‘This is Aotearoa’ or ‘This is New Zealand’).[16] "Ko Aotearoa Tēnei" considers more than 20 Government departments and agencies and makes recommendations as to reforms of "laws, policies or practices relating to health, education, science, intellectual property, indigenous flora and fauna, resource management, conservation, the Māori language, arts and culture, heritage, and the involvement of Māori in the development of New Zealand’s positions on international instruments affecting indigenous rights."[17] The First Chapter of volume 1 (of the full 2 volume report) considers the relationship between taonga works and intellectual property. The Tribunal provides a working definition of a ‘taonga work’ as being that:

"A taonga work is a work, whether or not it has been fixed, that is in its entirety an expression of mātauranga Māori; it will relate to or invoke ancestral connections, and contain or reflect traditional narratives or stories. A taonga work will possess mauri and have living kaitiaki in accordance with tikanga Māori." (Vol 1, 1.7.3 p. 96)[18]

These working definitions involve concepts which are described by the Tribunal as being: Mauri is having a living essence or spirit.[18] Kaitiaki can be spiritual guardians that exist in non-human form; kaitiaki obligations also exist in the human realm. The related concept is that "Kaitiakitanga is the obligation, arising from the kin relationship, to nurture or care for a person or thing it has a spiritual aspect, encompassing not only an obligation to care for and nurture not only physical well-being but also mauri."[18] Kaitiaki obligations are described by the Tribunal as being that, “those who have mana (or, to use treaty terminology, rangatiratanga) must exercise it in accordance with the values of kaitiakitanga – to act unselfishly, with right mind and heart, and with proper Mana and kaitiakitanga go together as right and responsibility, and that kaitiakitanga responsibility can be understood not only as a cultural principle but as a system of law”.[18] The Tribunal also provide a working definition of a ‘taonga-derived work’ as being that:

"A taonga-derived work is a work that derives its inspiration from mātauranga Māori or a taonga work, but does not relate to or invoke ancestral connections, nor contain or reflect traditional narratives or stories, in any direct way. A taonga-derived work is identifiably Māori in nature or contains identifiably Māori elements, but has neither mauri nor living kaitiaki in accordance with tikanga Māori."(Vol 1, 1.7.3 p. 96)[18]

The Tribunal considered which principles applied to whether consent to its use, rather than mere consultation, was necessary where the work was a taonga work, or where the knowledge or information was mātauranga Māori.[18]