There are a raft of issues surrounding access to information. These basically stem from three facets; internal, external and joint. It is important to deal with those issues affecting Roopu members first as it centres decisions on the most important elements of why the project is being run – for the benefit of the Roopu.
Distinction between data and information (or knowledge) also needs to be made at this time as this also stresses and confirms the personalisation of the process. Data is something that can be procured from outside sources. It can be transferred in digital or hardcopy formats for a price. Knowledge or information however, is usually transferred by personal commitment.
Knowledge or information that is offered contextualises the importance of the knowledge to the Roopu, so the acquisition of information or knowledge must be treated with the respect it demands throughout the entire transfer process. Some experts may be reluctant or resistant to their matauranga being documented and some may defer to others. Some may have less to offer than they think and some more than they thought. Still others may only have the hugely important element of enthusiasm to offer.
The recording of matauranga should be undertaken pursuant to the tikanga of the Roopu. For example, if a kaumatua was approached without warning by someone without the appropriate tribal credentials and asked to verify the location of a battle or a particular rongoa place, the offence may inhibit the process. [On the other hand, if they have been involved in the planning of the project from
its inception and well aware of the intent and purpose of the project, kaumatua and kuia will know their knowledge is valued and valuable to the tribe and will trust the process]. Ultimately, the persons who record the information have to be capable and acceptable.
All the roles within the project should be clearly delineated within each job description – overloaded workers do not produce quality work and quality is fundamental to the success of the project.
Part of the project design should be dedicated to access policies once the information is collected. It is of no use to collect the information and then find it was compromised when Nanny E wanted to look into the information database, decided to change it, and ended up wiping half the records. The levels of security access should be defined including who will or won’t have access, what gradient levels of security passwords will be required, storage mechanisms and place, backup considerations etc. Many of these policies will already be in place although they may need to be updated. The recommendation about whether a dedicated computer is required will also be dependant on information access and security issues.
Information access and security policies and processes should also be defined for external parties. The project and what it produces belong to the Roopu, and there should be clear definition who is to have access to the information and the outputs (files or maps). The issues discussed at length in Part three, send constructive messages as to the potential consequences of unauthorised access and use of information.
The same applies to joint ventures wherein many councils are assisting in cultural mapping opportunities. The buffering of sites of significance is an accepted mechanism to maintain sensitive information about a site. However, designing a method that triggers appropriate Roopu responses without compromising sensitive information need not be problematic. For instance a waahi tapu that has koiwi buried under a wetlands will have different action responses to one that is the last known rongoa site for arthritis. You may not necessarily want outsiders to know exactly why a site is important – just that it is. Creating random fuzzy boundary shapes for areas of special interest is also another option. Rather than circular buffers, where the centre is the point of interest, offsetting or randomising shapes can disguise locations to an extent. Both Laituri and Kamau discuss this notion of “fuzzy maps”.211 Roopu can also design their own colour or numeric code or assign a number sequence to sites of significance that will then be triggered when the resource consent ‘hits’ the office. If it is an internal, secure document, no one on the outside knows the key to the codes and Roopu responses can be defined based on their own internal priorities and action responses.
211 Kamau, R. (1999). ““Between Two Worlds” The implementation of Geographic Information Systems in Local
Government with particular reference to the provision of resource management information to iwi.” Master of Social Sciences thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Protocols for transfer of data
Another important component that needs to be clearly stated within project briefs are data transfer protocols that will define how relationships are managed. By relationships, it is meant the internal relationships and associations between Roopu members, committees and functionaries. These relationships can sometimes become stressed when misconceptions of power and information sharing occurs. The principles of manaakitanga, whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga will underpin data sharing agreements or transfer protocols that should be constructed at the outset to avoid stress being placed on relationships.
Protocols for data transfer should also be constructed with organisations that lie outside the tribal or roopu network. The ease of construction is dependant on the relationships that have been formed in the past or are formed during discussions. Transfer methods (format and time frames for information or data transfer), receipt acknowledgement mechanisms and timeframes, statements of agreed restrictions on use, information sharing agreements and procedures for the upgrade or maintenance of information should all be defined and agreed upon. Ngati Hamua have recently entered into a joint venture arrangement with the Greater Wellington District Council that has seen capacity building outcomes that have benefited both Ngati Hamua and the GWDC. Their sites of significance protocols are appended to this guide (see Appendix 9: Ngati Hamua Sites of Significance Protocol, page 84)
“Hey Rangi, how are we going to manage our data? What happens if you decide to take a holiday and disappear away from here for a couple of years? How would we know how good the data is or where it came from?”