Your search

Governments in multicultural democracies are increasingly being challenged to justify the collection of ethnic and racial data, and the targeted policies they support. Given mounting opposition to ethnicbased policies in New Zealand, it is timely to consider two questions that have arisen from ongoing debate. The first is what criteria ought to apply to determine who is Māori for policy purposes. The second is which Mäori ought to benefit from targeted policies and programmes. This paper addresses both questions empirically and makes two suggestions: (1) that statistical and legal definitions of Māori be amended to take account of both self-identified ethnicity and descent; (2) that programmes which seek to militate Māori disadvantage be oriented towards those who strongly identify as Māori, since they are the most likely to be in need.

In First World colonised nations such as Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, population statistics form the evidentiary base for how Indigenous peoples are known and ‘managed’ through state policy approaches. Yet, population statistics are not a neutral counting. Decisions of what and how to count reflect particular assumptions about Indigenous identity, ways of life and wellbeing. More often than not, the requirements and priorities of government take precedence over the informational needs and priorities of Indigenous communities. Whereas National Statistics Offices (NSOs) once rendered Indigenous peoples invisible in official statistics through non-recognition, the more pressing problem in the 21st century is that of misrecognition. In seeking to move beyond statistical misrecognition, we propose a set of guiding principles for bringing government reporting frameworks and Indigenous concepts of identity and wellbeing into closer proximity. We argue that a principled approach to collecting, disseminating and analysing Indigenous data not only avoids misrecognising Indigenous peoples but enhances the functionality of official statistics for Indigenous peoples and NSOs alike.

The population census is a universal tool of governance but has come under increasing pressure as governments look to reduce costs, gain efficiencies and counter declining response rates. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the census transformation strategy has a short-term focus on modernising the census and a long-term vision of a fully administrative census. The digital-first 2018 Census was an ambitious step towards modernisation but there are growing concerns that it may fail to deliver high-quality data, particularly for Māori and iwi. This research note considers the implications of lower response rates and reflects on the steps that might be taken to retain the trust and confidence of Māori in the census, including possibilities for Māori data governance across the official statistics system.

As the global ‘data revolution’ accelerates, how can the data rights and interests of indigenous peoples be secured? Premised on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this book argues that indigenous peoples have inherent and inalienable rights relating to the collection, ownership and application of data about them, and about their lifeways and territories. As the first book to focus on indigenous data sovereignty, it asks: what does data sovereignty mean for indigenous peoples, and how is it being used in their pursuit of self-determination? The varied group of mostly indigenous contributors theorise and conceptualise this fast-emerging field and present case studies that illustrate the challenges and opportunities involved. These range from indigenous communities grappling with issues of identity, governance and development, to national governments and NGOs seeking to formulate a response to indigenous demands for data ownership. While the book is focused on the CANZUS states of Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States, much of the content and discussion will be of interest and practical value to a broader global audience.

Despite the growing political and economic importance of iwi in New Zealand, little attention has been given to their changing demography. Using data from the New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings, we analyse the growth trajectories of four iwi - Ngāi Tahu, Waikato, Ngāti Awa and Tūhoe - between 1991 and 2006. We find a great deal of variation in iwi growth between censuses and over the entire focal period. In most instances, iwi birth cohorts increased rather than decreased in size, and gains from “new” members were especially marked among children, the middle-aged and women. The findings confirm the importance of accounting for non-demographic factors when projecting and planning for future iwi population growth.

Māori land data produced through colonial systems of dispossession lack interoperability, preventing kin-based communities from tracking their land. Our novel approach to repatriate and harmonise historic land data traces the history of the 45,500 acre Opuatia Block allocated to hapū Ngāti Tiipa in 1866, following the confiscation of 1.2 million acres of Waikato land. Ngāti Tiipa resisted Crown and settler pressures for 30 years, but 80% of Opuatia was alienated within a decade. We discuss the devastation of ‘judicial raupatu’ and the implications of this work for hapū data sovereignty and wider international efforts to achieve Indigenous data sovereignty.

Contemporary Issues in Māori Demography

Background and objectives: ‘Race’ and ethnicity data have become increasingly institutionalised within health research about indigenous peoples. While these data are critical to monitoring the differential distribution of risks and benefits in racialised societies, their uncritical and under-theorised use can perpetuate harmful biologically-deterministic and essentialist approaches to indigenous health. Additionally, indigenous rights and interests in data about us are often overlooked, with issues of indigenous data governance unresolved. The workshop objectives are to: Develop skills to critique uncritical use of ‘race’/ethnicity in indigenous health researchProvide examples from Aotearoa/New Zealand of frameworks or principles of indigenous data sovereignty

When researchers want to study indigenous populations they are dependent upon the highly variable way in which states or territories enumerate, categorise and differentiate indigenous people. In this volume, anthropologists, historians, demographers and sociologists have come together for the first time to examine the historical and contemporary construct of indigenous people in a number of fascinating geographical contexts around the world, including Canada, the United States, Colombia, Russia, Scandinavia, the Balkans and Australia. Using historical and demographical evidence, the contributors explore the creation and validity of categories for enumerating indigenous populations, the use and misuse of ethnic markers, micro-demographic investigations, and demographic databases, and thereby show how the situation varies substantially between countries.

Research on Indigenous issues rarely focuses on life in major metropolitan centres. Instead, there is a tendency to frame rural locations as emblematic of authentic or "real" Indigeneity. While such a perspective may support Indigenous struggles for territory and recognition, it fails to account for large swaths of contemporary Indigenous realities, including the increased presence of Indigenous people in cities. The contributors to this volume explore the implications of urbanization on the production of distinctive Indigenous identities in Canada, the US, New Zealand, and Australia. In doing so, they demonstrate the resilience, creativity, and complexity of the urban Indigenous presence.

This book examines how Indigenous Peoples around the world are demanding greater data sovereignty, and challenging the ways in which governments have historically used Indigenous data to develop policies and programs. In the digital age, governments are increasingly dependent on data and data analytics to inform their policies and decision-making. However, Indigenous Peoples have often been the unwilling targets of policy interventions and have had little say over the collection, use and application of data about them, their lands and cultures. At the heart of Indigenous Peoples’ demands for change are the enduring aspirations of self-determination over their institutions, resources, knowledge and information systems. With contributors from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, North and South America and Europe, this book offers a rich account of the potential for Indigenous data sovereignty to support human flourishing and to protect against the ever-growing threats of data-related risks and harms.

In the last decade iwi have begun to shift their focus from challenging the state to developing internal capacity. In so doing, the need for accurate, relevant data on iwi populations has been amplified. Using Waikato-Tainui as a case study, we examine the potential gaps between the statistical needs of iwi in a postsettlement context and the official data available to them. Our analysis uses two time points: 1996, shortly after the raupatu settlement, and 2006, the most recent census. Comparing data from the Waikato-Tainui register with those from the 1996 and 2006 censuses, we find significant variation in the parameters and characteristics of Waikato-Tainui in official statistics versus the tribe’s own register. We discuss some of the implications of these gaps and suggest ways in which the statistical needs of iwi could be better met. Our key recommendation is that the existing iwi question in the census be expanded to prompt for tribal registration status. This change would better align official data with the concept of membership used by iwi authorities and yield data that are more relevant for their policy and planning needs.