Scoping Meetings:
summary of outcomes
section 4.2 |
4.
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
4.
Analysis of Maori Consultation
programme
140
4.2
Analysis of cultural, spiritual and religious issues for
Maori raised in Public Meetings
159
Background
159
Methodology
160
Whose views?
160
Issues raised
161
Attitudes and knowledge
161
Treaty of Waitangi and genetic modification
161
Tikanga/spiritual
162
Food and medicine
163
Intellectual property
164
Summary
165
Report Appendix 3 | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Section 4: Maori Consultation
| H1 | p159
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
4.2 Analysis of cultural,
spiritual and religious issues
for Maori raised in Public
Meetings
Background
The purpose of the Public Meetings was to allow the Commission access to the
views and opinions of a cross-section of New Zealanders. Fifteen meetings were
held throughout the country between September and November 2000. The
planning and programme of Public Meetings and the process for seeking and
recording public views is set out in detail in Appendix 1 (see "Processes of the
Commission: Public Meetings: the process" and "Operational detail: Public
Meetings operation"). A summary of outcomes is presented previously in this
volume. This section deals with the issues for Maori raised in the Public
Meetings.
Of relevance to the Maori Consultation programme is the fact that meetings were
facilitated by two independent, bilingual (in English and Maori) contractors.
Workshop discussion questions were grouped into eight categories derived from
the Warrant and were of general relevance, except four in the cultural/spiritual
grouping that specifically asked about issues for Maori in relation to genetic
modification (and four that asked the same questions about non-Maori views).
The questions were as follows:
What are the cultural, spiritual and religious issues for Maori associated with the use or
avoidance of genetically modified food (production and consumption)?
What are the cultural, spiritual and religious issues for Maori associated with the use or
avoidance of genetically modified crops (production and consumption)?
What are the cultural, spiritual and religious issues for Maori associated with the use or
avoidance of genetically modified pharmaceuticals (production and consumption)?
What are the cultural, spiritual and religious issues for Maori associated with the use or
avoidance of genetically modified medical procedures?
p160 |
Section 4: Maori Consultation
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
A further workshop question on cultural/spiritual issues asked:
How should spiritual, religious and ethical concerns be weighted against societal/
economic benefits?
Early in the programme of meetings, the basic groupings of issues was followed
fairly closely; that is, persons attending the meetings grouped their responses in a
similar way. However, later meetings often developed their own categories in
addition to those used in the schedule of questions. There are therefore responses
on such matters as the Treaty of Waitangi (which was not specifically referred to)
that arose either in answer to the cultural/spiritual questions, or because those
attending meetings identified this as an essential topic.
Methodology
For the purposes of this analysis, written responses on the summary cards have
been used. Feedback from the second part of the meetings was recorded and noted
by the Commissioners. The opinions voiced during this segment have been
included in the Commissioners' deliberations, contributing to the content of their
report.
Whose views?
People attending meetings were not asked to identify themselves by ethnicity, nor
by age, residential locality or any other identifier. However, on occasion, members
of the public who were Maori identified themselves as such when speaking from
the floor or in the course of writing their views on the summary cards. Equally,
some of the responses on the summary cards indicate that the respondent was
non-Maori. Where it is possible to confirm that a response is non-Maori
(through self-identification in the response), this is noted below.
Overall, there was a noticeable Maori presence at most of the Public Meetings,
ranging from a kura kaupapa and accompanying adults at the Manukau City
meeting to a meeting in Greymouth with approximately 60% of the attendees
identifying as Maori.
The following summary of views cannot therefore be described as an outline
solely of Maori views on issues for Maori. However, a proportion of the views
summarised on the response cards talk of such things as "my tupuna", or "we
Maori", or of Treaty promises for "our taonga". In other cases, some views (a
smaller proportion) appear to set out non-Maori views: one for instance refers to
"we Pakehas", another talks of "their" and "them" in referring to Maori. On the
basis of this approach, it is possible to say that this summary captures a
predominantly Maori outline of views.
Section 4: Maori Consultation
| H1 | p161
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Maori responses were not confined to the cultural/spiritual questions, and Maori
views are also present in the summary of responses to the general questions
presented earlier in this volume (see "Public Meetings: summary of outcomes").
Issues raised
The responses reflect, to a degree, the categories of issues raised by the questions.
However, some "categories" have been added, for instance the Treaty of Waitangi,
as indicated above, and intellectual property, because of the frequency with which
comments on these topics appear. The responses have been grouped as follows:
*
attitudes and knowledge
*
Treaty of Waitangi
*
tikanga/spiritual
*
food and medicine
*
intellectual property.
Respondents' use of the terms "GM" (genetic modification) and "GE" (genetic
engineering) is retained in quoting their responses.
Attitudes and knowledge
Some meetings recorded preliminary issues about the way in which the questions
had been framed and categorised. In New Plymouth, there was a query about
whether there was a difference between the ethical concerns of Maori and non-
Maori. In Nelson, it was stated that cultural, spiritual and religious issues about
genetic modification are not exclusive to Maori. One Auckland respondent was
"exceedingly annoyed" at a perceived "lack of real acceptance of people other
than Maori having spiritual attitudes regarding land, animals, plants etc".
Another theme (primarily in the northern part of the country) was that of the need
for more knowledge about the issues. A respondent in Manukau City said:
We are Maori and we should have the right to know what GE is all about. We need honest
answers.
Another spoke of a lack of knowledge around the world, and the right to have this
knowledge so that decisions could be made on whether genetic modification is
"good or not".
Treaty of Waitangi and genetic modification
Some responses about the Treaty asked how the Treaty "relates" to the debate on
genetic modification. This query was raised several times in different ways at
p162 |
Section 4: Maori Consultation
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Palmerston North. In most areas, however, there were clear views on the
relationship between the Treaty and genetic modification. There was a view that
genetic modification is a breach of the Treaty. This was clearly stated in Dunedin
and, at the other end of the country, in Manukau City.
In other areas, more detailed comments were provided. For instance, in
Wellington, one response indicated that genetic modification is a breach of the
Treaty because it "denies the element of partnership" in decisions. Another
response came from a person who identified as a "young pakeha" and indicated
that Maori will soon be in the majority and Maori views should have a standing at
least equal to that of other views. Treaty principles of partnership and good faith
were referred to in Manukau City. Genetic modification was seen as contrary to
these, and to the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga.
In Hamilton the question posed was "Does GM breach the Treaty?" There were
mixed responses: some said they were uncertain about the legal answer to the
question; another stated an inability to answer the question adequately and noted
that there were "transgenic sheep" at Whakamaru "with local hapu blessing". There
was one clear response that genetic modification does not breach the Treaty and
could potentially be a tool to maintain the integrity of the native flora and fauna.
There was also a firm answer of "yes" to the question of whether genetic modification
breaches the Treaty, together with the comment that the "rights of tangata whenua"
should be affirmed. The response from Gisborne was straightforward: it called for
the Treaty to be honoured for both partners and concluded "we don't know what we
are mucking about with!" In Whangarei, there was opposition to "GE" because
under the Treaty, "all Maori taonga are ours", and "Our genes are us. They are
taonga". Other Treaty references were made in connection with specific issues (for
example, food) and are referred to elsewhere.
Tikanga/spiritual
This category attracted the most comment, in part because the formal questions
specifically asked about spiritual/cultural issues. In Dunedin, there was concern
about the "reductionist" effect of genetic modification on the practice of tikanga
and kaitiakitanga. Palmerston North responses were unclear about the relationship
between the Treaty and genetic modification, but it was clearly stated there that
Maori concerns about taonga and whakapapa need to be addressed. In Wellington,
it was said that "spiritual, intellectual and physical matters inform each other", that
respect for individual mauri and wairua must be maintained, and that species
relationships should be respected, together with the mana, wairua and mauri of
particular species. One respondent cautioned against making decisions that
Section 4: Maori Consultation
| H1 | p163
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
might harm future generations. Another referred to the obligations and
responsibilities of mana tangata tiaki.
Responses in Rotorua similarly referred to mauri and wairua, and to whakapapa.
In Whangarei, one response stated:
I am opposed to GE because it discounts my whakapapa. All my ancestors are disregarded
when our genes are tampered with. It is our responsibility to protect our ancestry for our
tamariki.
Again in Whangarei, it was said that the body is tapu - sacred even when dead. In
Napier, the view was expressed that "GE" is "against the natural process" and
against the whole process of creation, with a conclusion that "species borders
should not be crossed". There was also concern about the "social implications" of
genetic modification and who might profit from it.
At northern meetings (in Hamilton, Manukau City and Auckland City), there
were more detailed responses from Maori and non-Maori. In Hamilton, one
non-Maori response stated that "we Pakehas understand species connection at a
deeper and frankly more correct level than any pious evocation of religious
myths". Another response asked whether any ethnic or cultural grouping can "lay
claim" to be guardians of species, even indigenous species that evolved millions
before the arrival of humans.
Other responses in Hamilton spoke of the need for protection for tikanga, mauri,
kawa, te ira tangata, whakapapa, te taiao, hauoratanga and nga taonga tuku iho.
One mentioned a "lack of recognition" of human relationships with historical and
aquatic species "eg tuakana/teina roles" and fear of contamination of indigenous
species.
In Manukau City, there was concern that cultural, spiritual and moral reasons for
opposing genetic modification were not seen as being as important as scientific
facts and the mitigation of risks.
In Auckland, one respondent commented that there were several groups that
opposed the transfer of genes between species because of their spiritual beliefs
including Maori, Jewish, Muslims and others. Another response focused on
Maori as the indigenous people of New Zealand with a cultural and spiritual
connection with the land. To introduce genetically modified foods "into these
subtle vibrations of their energy" was seen as likely to be "highly toxic".
Food and medicine
There was consistent anxiety nationally about the effects of GM on food. In
Wellington the Treaty was seen as the basis for an agreement to protect the food
p164 |
Section 4: Maori Consultation
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
chain and taonga tuku iho. In Manukau City, one response stated "my mana
Maori comes from my tupuna, not a riwai, kumara or ika." There was a call for
scientists to "leave our food alone"; again, a view that food is taonga to be
protected against experimentation, summed up in one comment that "the Treaty
of Waitangi said leave our kai alone". There was also concern about transgenic
issues: one response in particular said "Maori don't need moth genes in our
tomatoes.... We say no to GE food."
There was also concern that Maori medicines be protected from modification,
and from commercial exploitation.
In Hamilton, issues of genetically modified food, crops and pharmaceuticals
were considered together and recommendations made for:
*
active involvement by whanau and hapu in research or experimentation, or
monitoring research or experimentation
*
appropriate Maori specialists to be on any decision-making bodies, and
whanau and hapu to be represented
*
a genetic bill of rights to be drafted by whanau and hapu and circulated for
wider comment
*
development of containment guidelines in partnership with whanau and
hapu to prevent escape of genetically modified materials
*
whakapapa protection mechanisms
*
development of guidelines by and for Maori on risk management ensuring
recognition for each whanau and hapu
*
ethical protocols to be developed with whanau/hapu/iwi for their particular
area.
Intellectual property
There was concern about ownership of the intellectual property rights in plants
and crops. In Palmerston North, a question was asked about what constitutes the
spiritual property of a plant. In Wellington, it was said that that intellectual
property rights should remain with indigenous cultures, and not be patented or
modified. People in Rotorua were concerned about protection of flora, fauna,
native plants and medicines and the guarantees provided in the Treaty, and there
were similar concerns in Auckland and Whangarei.
Section 4: Maori Consultation
| H1 | p165
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Summary
Overall, there seemed to be a clear distrust of genetic modification in relation to
Maori.
In Maori responses there were constant and consistent references to the Treaty of
Waitangi throughout the country, ranging from the view that genetic modification
breaches the Treaty principles of partnership and good faith to the view that the
Treaty guaranteed protections for taonga, including native flora and fauna, and
tino rangatiratanga, meaning that decisions about genetic matters involving
tangata whenua or taonga were matters for Maori. There was a view that
transgenic modification was unacceptable, that there were Maori obligations to
respect and protect plants and animal species from genetic modification, and that
foodstuffs should not be interfered with. There were also recommendations about
the need for Maori involvement in decision-making if genetic modification did
proceed.
Non-Maori responses fell into one of two broad categories. There were those that
questioned or opposed the idea that Maori views be sought, either because they
were not sure what differentiated Maori and non-Maori views, or because they
believed there was too much emphasis on Maori views on spiritual matters, to the
exclusion of others. There was also a small group of responses that was strongly
sceptical or dismissive of perceived Maori views.
The other category of non-Maori responses supported the approach of seeking
Maori views. One asked "How have you sought Maori views in a safe and robust
manner?" In others, there was a concern to address Maori issues, to acknowledge
protections in the Treaty, and expressions of respect for perceived Maori views of
safeguarding the environment.