Definition and meaning of Taonga

A taonga in Māori culture is a treasured thing, whether tangible or intangible. Tangible examples are all sorts of heirlooms and artefacts, land, fisheries, natural resources such as geothermal springs^[1] and access to natural resources, such as riparian water rights and access to the riparian zone of rivers or streams. Intangible examples may include language, spiritual beliefs and radio frequencies.

What constitutes a taonga has been the subject of fierce debate, as have the implications for policies regarding such things as intellectual property (such as in the case of the names used in the LEGO Bionicle toy line)^{[2] [3]} and genetic engineering.^[4]

The Māori names of many New Zealand museums contain the term Whare taonga—literally "treasure house". The Ministry for Culture and Heritage is also called Te Manatū Taonga.

  Taonga and second Article of the Treaty of Waitangi

Taonga have constitutional significance in New Zealand, as the second Article of the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed that the Māori signatories would retain the possession and enjoyment of their taonga under British rule. Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991 mandates decision makers to ‘recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu [sacred sites], and other taonga’ as a matter of national importance.^[5]

  The Wai 26 & 150 claim regarding radio frequencies

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.^[6] 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.^[7] The Waitangi Tribunal amalgamated the Wai 26 with the Wai 150 claim;^[8] with the final report of the Tribunal recommending that the Crown suspend the radio frequency tender process and proceed to negotiate with the iwi.^[9]

  The Wai 38 claim regarding spiritual places and burial sites

In November 1996,various members of Te Roroa file 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.^[10]

  The Wai 262 claim in respect of mātauranga Māori

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.^[11] 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’).^[12] "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."^[1]

The First Chapter of volume 1 (of the full 2 volume report) considers the relationship between taonga works and intellectual property. The Tribunal provide 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)^[1]

These working definitions involve concepts which are described by the Tribunal as being: Mauri is having a living essence or spirit.^[13] 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."^[13] 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”.^[13]

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)^[1]

The Tribunal go on to consider what are the principles by which it should be decided whether consent to use, rather than mere consultation, is necessary once it has determined that the work in question is a taonga work, or that the knowledge or information in question is mātauranga Māori.^[1]

  References