AI ethics grounded in OECD AI Principles and te ao Māori.

Aotearoa's National AI Strategy aligns with the OECD AI Principles, but responsible implementation requires more than international standards. Organisations operating here must also honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, uphold Māori data governance, and safeguard cultural safety for Māori and Pacific communities.

View ethical foundations

Built for

Crown entities and agencies · Organisations working with Māori data · FMA / RBNZ regulated firms · Boards and ethics committees
Anchored to: OECD AI Principles / Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Te Mana Raraunga / Privacy Act 2020 / Human Rights Act 1993 / Public Service AI Framework

What you receive.

Two foundations in detail

AI ethics policy

Organisational policy mapping OECD principles and Treaty obligations to your specific operations and AI use cases.

Māori data sovereignty assessment

Analysis of data practices against Te Mana Raraunga principles with remediation recommendations for tangata whenua data.

Bias testing report

Equity-focused fairness analysis with outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity, age, disability, and other protected grounds under the Human Rights Act 1993.

Ethics committee charter

Governance structure with cultural competency requirements, decision criteria, and escalation pathways for ethical review.

Why standard ethics frameworks fall short here.

International AI ethics guidance was not designed for a bicultural nation with Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and indigenous data sovereignty requirements. New Zealand businesses need governance frameworks that reflect the unique compliance landscape of operating in Aotearoa.

  1. 01
    Equity exposure

    Algorithmic bias lands hardest on indigenous communities.

    AI systems trained on data that underrepresents or misrepresents Māori and Pacific peoples produce outcomes that deepen existing inequities. Credit scoring, welfare eligibility, healthcare triage, and predictive policing models have all demonstrated disparate impacts on indigenous populations globally. In Aotearoa, where systemic disparities are well documented, this risk demands specific attention beyond generic fairness testing.

  2. 02
    Expectations rising

    No prescriptive ethics law, but growing scrutiny.

    New Zealand has no mandatory AI ethics code. Adoption is voluntary. But the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, and sector regulators such as the FMA and RBNZ increasingly expect organisations to demonstrate responsible AI practices. The gap between no legal mandate and no consequences is narrowing. Businesses that wait for prescriptive requirements will find themselves retrofitting ethics into systems already in production, a far costlier exercise than getting governance right from the start.

  3. 03
    Constitutional obligation

    Te Tiriti obligations are not optional.

    Te Tiriti o Waitangi creates specific obligations around partnership, protection, and participation that extend to how organisations collect, use, and make decisions with data about Māori. AI systems that process whakapapa data, health information, or social service records involving Māori engage these obligations directly. A responsible AI framework that ignores Treaty principles is incomplete by definition.

Two foundations for ethical AI in Aotearoa.

Our approach integrates OECD AI Principles, New Zealand's adopted international benchmark, with te ao Māori values that reflect the unique ethical obligations of operating in a Treaty-based nation. Both foundations underpin every engagement.

Foundation A

OECD AI Principles

New Zealand's National AI Strategy explicitly aligns with the OECD Recommendation on AI, establishing these as the country's ethical benchmark for responsible AI development and deployment.

  • Inclusive growth and sustainable development
  • Human-centred values and fairness
  • Transparency and explainability
  • Robustness, security, and safety
  • Accountability for proper functioning

Foundation B

Te ao Māori values

These values drawn from te ao Māori provide a culturally grounded ethical lens that ensures AI systems respect the unique context of operating in Aotearoa.

  • Kaitiakitanga (guardianship)
  • Mana (authority and prestige)
  • Whakapapa (genealogy and interconnection)
  • Tika (correctness)
  • Manaakitanga (care and reciprocity)

Implementation services for Aotearoa.

Four practice areas, each tied to documented deliverables, that turn dual ethical foundations into operational governance.

Service 01

Māori data governance and cultural impact

Structured assessment of how AI systems interact with data about or from Māori, applying Te Mana Raraunga principles to identify sovereignty risks and cultural safety gaps before systems go live. We bring deep understanding of kaitiakitanga and te ao Māori to every assessment.

  • Data provenance mapping for Māori and Pacific data
  • Cultural safety analysis of AI outputs
  • Engagement framework for iwi and mana whenua
  • Sovereignty-compliant governance recommendations

Service 02

Equity-focused bias testing

Fairness testing with specific attention to outcomes for Māori, Pacific peoples, and other communities that experience systemic disadvantage. Goes beyond standard demographic parity to test for proxy discrimination through variables like postcode, language, and surname.

  • Disparate impact across Human Rights Act 1993 grounds
  • Proxy variable identification
  • Intersectional analysis
  • Ongoing monitoring with equity triggers

Service 03

OECD-aligned ethics framework

Comprehensive organisational ethics framework that translates OECD AI Principles into operational policies, integrates Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and establishes governance structures appropriate for your sector and risk profile. Designed to align with Privacy Act 2020 from the outset.

  • Responsible AI policy mapped to OECD and Treaty
  • Ethics committee charter with cultural competency
  • Ethical review criteria and escalation pathways
  • Public Service AI Framework alignment

Service 04

Transparency and explainability design

Design and implementation of explanation mechanisms that meet Privacy Act 2020 transparency requirements and provide culturally appropriate communication about AI decision-making to affected individuals and communities.

  • Explainability techniques (SHAP, LIME)
  • Plain-language disclosure for IPP 3
  • Human review and appeals pathways
  • Culturally appropriate explanation formats

Common questions about AI ethics implementation.

Why use OECD AI Principles instead of developing our own?

New Zealand's National AI Strategy explicitly aligns with the OECD Recommendation on AI, making these principles the country's adopted international benchmark. The OECD framework provides interoperability with trading partners and international standards while allowing organisations to layer on Treaty obligations and te ao Māori values specific to Aotearoa. This dual approach gives you internationally recognised foundations without losing cultural specificity.

What is Māori data sovereignty and how does it apply to our AI systems?

Māori data sovereignty, as articulated by Te Mana Raraunga (the Māori Data Sovereignty Network), asserts that data about Māori people, language, culture, resources, and environments is a taonga (treasure) subject to Māori governance. For AI systems, this means organisations should consider who controls data about Māori, how it is used in training models, whether Māori have been consulted on its use, and whether AI-derived insights are shared back with the communities they concern. We help operationalise these principles proportionate to your use case.

Is AI ethics implementation mandatory in New Zealand?

There is no mandatory AI ethics code in New Zealand. However, existing laws create binding compliance obligations that overlap significantly with ethical AI practices. The Privacy Act 2020 requires transparency about data collection and use. The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects fundamental rights. For public sector agencies, the Public Service AI Framework establishes clear expectations. The FMA and RBNZ also signal growing scrutiny in financial services. Voluntary adoption now strengthens risk management and positions businesses well as regulatory expectations develop across Aotearoa.

How do you test for bias affecting Māori and Pacific peoples specifically?

Standard fairness testing fails to detect discrimination against smaller populations because statistical methods lose sensitivity with smaller sample sizes. We use techniques designed for this challenge: proxy variable testing (postcode, surname, language as proxies for ethnicity), counterfactual testing with culturally informed scenarios, intersectional analysis examining compounded disadvantage, and outcome monitoring with equity-specific thresholds. Where direct ethnicity data is unavailable, we use established statistical estimation methods with appropriate privacy safeguards.

How long does an ethics implementation engagement take?

A single AI system ethical review takes 4 to 6 weeks. Comprehensive ethics framework development typically requires 10 to 16 weeks, including stakeholder engagement. Organisation-wide implementation programmes span 6 to 12 months. Engagements involving iwi consultation require timeframes that respect tikanga processes, which we build into project planning from the outset. We scope each engagement to your specific context and compliance requirements.

Related services.

Ethics rarely sits alone. These services tie into the same governance fabric.

Begin your AI ethics implementation in Aotearoa.

International principles provide the foundation. Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and te ao Māori values provide the context. Together they create governance that is both globally credible and culturally grounded. Initial review identifies ethical risks, Treaty obligations, and practical next steps.

Or view Māori data governance

Get in Touch