Navigating Our Seas of Data

My people, the Pacific people, have a long and rich history of using data to navigate the vast and complex ocean that connects us. To quote the distinguished words of Te āti Awa leader, Kura Moeahu at FestPAC 2024, “the ocean does not separate our people, it connects us”. In the expanse of our ocean, the Pacific Ocean, where the horizon stretches my ancient ancestors Polynesian navigators embarked on courageous voyages. Guided by the stars, ocean currents, and their intimate knowledge of the waves, they sailed across thousands of miles, connecting islands and cultures.

One of the most renowned examples of this is Tupai'a, a Tahitian priest and navigator who joined Captain Cook's first voyage to the Pacific in 1769. Tupai'a had extensive knowledge of the geography, astronomy, and weather patterns of the Pacific, and he used this data to guide Cook and his crew to many islands that were unknown to Europeans. The data used by Tupai'a was not just numbers or facts, but a holistic and dynamic systems of understanding the world and his place in it. His data was also not his alone, but a collective and intergenerational legacy of his ancestors and culture. Allow us, Pacific People to carry on that navigation partnership.

Today, Pacific people face a different kind of challenge in navigating the data landscape. The 2028 Census is proposing an Admin Data First approach, which means that the census will rely primarily on existing administrative data sources, such as tax records, health records, and education records, to produce population statistics. While this approach may have some benefits in terms of efficiency and cost, it also poses significant risks and limitations for Pacific data sovereignty. Pacific data sovereignty is the right of Pacific people to own, control, access, and use their own data in ways that reflect their values, needs, and aspirations. ?We must pause and consider whether this approach truly honours the Pacific spirit of data sovereignty. I want to explore three critical factors that challenge this paradigm.?

The Fragile State of Pacific Data Sets

One of the main arguments for an Admin Data First approach is that it will improve the quality and coverage of the census data, especially for hard-to-reach populations. However, this argument assumes that the existing administrative data sources are accurate, complete, and consistent, which is not the case for Pacific data. Pacific data sets resemble a fragmented archipelago—scattered, incomplete, and often unreliable. Inadequate funding, limited capacity, and historical neglect have left gaps in our understanding of Pacific communities.

Without robust data, we risk misrepresenting their needs, aspirations, and challenges.?

Pacific data is often under-reported, misclassified, or aggregated in administrative data sets, leading to a loss of granularity and specificity. A recent study by Atatoa Carr et al. (2024)?highlighted the underrepresentation of Pacific peoples in health data, affecting policy decisions and resource allocation. The scarcity of accurate data impedes targeted interventions, perpetuating health disparities. For instance, maternal mortality rates among Pacific women remain alarmingly high, but without precise data, effective strategies remain elusive.

A ?study by Tanielu and Johnson (2014) found that Pacific people were under-represented in administrative data sources such as the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), which links data from various government agencies. They also found that Pacific people were often grouped into a single category, ignoring the diversity and heterogeneity of Pacific ethnicities, languages, and cultures. These examples show that relying on administrative data sources alone will not improve the quality of Pacific data, but rather perpetuate the existing gaps and errors.

The Missing Standard: Pacific Data Foundations

How might we establish a common framework and guidance for collecting, using, and interpreting Pacific data? ?Imagine navigating without a compass or star chart. Similarly, our Pacific data lacks a standardised framework. Unlike established methodologies in other domains, we lack a Pacific Data Standard—a shared language for collection, interpretation, and utilisation.

A co designed, decided and implemented Pacific data standard would ensure that Pacific data is consistent, comparable, and meaningful across different data sources and contexts. It would also reflect the values, principles, and aspirations of Pacific people, and acknowledge our diversity and complexity.

A Pacific data standard would also enable Pacific people to have more control and ownership over their own data, and to use it for their own purposes and benefits.

Currently, there is no such standard in place, and different data sources and agencies may have different definitions, classifications, and methods for Pacific data. For example, the Census uses a self-identified approach for ethnicity data, while some administrative data sources may use a provider-allocated or derived approach. This results in discrepancies and inconsistencies in Pacific data across different data sources, and limits the ability to link, analyse and most importantly replicate Pacific data methodology. A study by Carter et al. (2016) highlighted the need for a Pacific data standard, and proposed a set of criteria and indicators for developing and evaluating such a standard. They also suggested that a Pacific data standard should be co-designed and co-implemented by Pacific people and data stakeholders, and that it should be flexible and adaptable to changing contexts and needs.? I support the urgency of establishing such standards .

By aligning methodologies across sectors, we can harmonize data practices and amplify our collective impact. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) go further by recognising the importance of data standardisation for monitoring progress. SDG 17.18 specifically calls for support to developing countries in building statistical capacity and data systems. While New Zealand is not a developing country, the gaps identified by Pacific Peoples statistics in New Zealand suggest that we can apply the same theory.

A robust Pacific data standard would facilitate cross-sector collaboration, enabling policymakers to make informed decisions on climate resilience, education, and social and economic development.

Without this foundation, our data, our Pacific data risks becoming a cacophony of disparate voices, hindering meaningful insights.

Trust and Confidence: Beyond Data Points

Improving the trust and confidence in the Pacific data is only one element of trust. How might we combine Data trust with the trust and confidence of the full data ecosystem?

At recent co design session with Pacific policy leaders in Government highlighted the need to build the trust and confidence of Pacific people in the data ecosystem, not just in the data itself. My aspiration is that Pacific Data is more than numbers; it should shapes policies, influences lives, and reflects our values. Trust and confidence are the currents that carry our data ecosystem. While improving data trust among Pacific communities is vital, we must also build trust in the broader data landscape. Transparency, ethical practices, and genuine partnerships are our guiding stars.? It begs the question: If Admin Data is first, then what is second? How might the lack of data quality be supplemented by secondary data?? What form will that take?

The data ecosystem refers to the network of actors, institutions, policies, and practices that shape the production, governance, and use of data. Trust and confidence in the data ecosystem is essential for Pacific data sovereignty, as it affects the willingness and ability of Pacific people to participate in data processes, access and use their own data, and hold data stakeholders accountable.

However, trust and confidence in the data ecosystem is not high among Pacific people, due to historical and ongoing experiences of colonisation, marginalisation, and misrepresentation in data.

A study by Fa'avae et al. (2016) explored the perceptions and experiences of Pacific people in relation to data, and found that many Pacific people felt that their data was not used for their benefit, but rather for the benefit of others. They also felt that their data was not reflective of their realities, identities, and aspirations, and that they had little or no control or ownership over their data. Many years after I still see the same symptoms. The study also identified some factors that could enhance the trust and confidence of Pacific people in the data ecosystem, such as: involving Pacific people in data processes, from design to dissemination; ensuring that data is culturally relevant, responsive, and respectful; providing feedback and transparency on how data is used and for what purposes; and supporting the capacity and capability of Pacific people to access and use their own data.?

While I concede that there has been significant investment in increasing Trust within my community.? The Memorandum of Understanding between the Pacific Data Sovereignty Network and Statistics New Zealand exemplifies a step toward trust-building. However, we need sustained efforts to foster trust beyond census cycles. Our cousins and allies in indigenous data sovereignty, Mana Rauranga have showed us the way. The creation of the Māori Data Sovereignty Framework demonstrates how indigenous communities can actively shape data policies, ensuring cultural integrity and equitable representation.

In Conclusion: Allow us…

I question an Administration Data First approach to the 2028 Census.? I urge Stats NZ and other data stakeholders to reconsider this approach, and to engage with Pacific people and the Pacific Data Sovereignty Network to co-design and co-implement a data approach that is aligned with the values, needs, and aspirations of Pacific people.

We take the learnings from our ancestor, Tupai'a. Pacific data is not just numbers or facts, but a holistic and dynamic system of understanding the world and our place in it. Pacific data is also not ours alone, but a collective and intergenerational legacy of our ancestors and culture. We have the right and the responsibility to own, control, access, and use our own data, and to ensure that it is used for our benefit and wellbeing.?

·????? Allow us to honour the legacy of our ancestor Tupai’a and his commitment to partnering with your ancestor, Captain James Cook.

·????? Allow data sovereignty be our guiding star—a constellation of self-determination, collaboration, and respect. The 2028 census can be more than data points; it can be a voyage toward equitable representation.?

·????? Allow us not to merely collect data but weave narratives—our stories, our data, our insights.

·????? Allow us to navigate with purpose, guided by the wisdom of our ancestors and the promise of a more just and inclusive future.