Skip to content

Meeting summaries - Data Ethics Advisory Group

The minutes for each meeting of the Data Ethics Advisory Group, grouped by date, are summarised here. 

21 June 2023

Invited to attend

Advisory Group: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Pieta Brown, Russell Craig, Jonathan Godfrey, Jonathan Kilgour, Will Koning; Andrew Sporle, Frith Tweedie

Stats NZ Officials: Caleb Johnstone, General Manager – Data System Policy; Emma MacDonald, Director – Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, Stats NZ; Fiona Wharton, Principal Advisor – Data Services; Amelia Campbell, Principal Policy Advisor.

Secretariat: Fiona Sinclair, Governance and Executive Secretariat.

Item contributors

Item Three: Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, Monika Ciolek Principal Policy Advisor, Rangiamohia Dansey–White, Policy Intern.

1. General welcome

The Chair welcomed members and officials, and the meeting was opened with karakia.

2. Committee administration

The minutes of the meeting held 23 May 2023 were approved.

Members declared relevant interests.

3. Consumer Data Right – Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE)

Discussion was held on the Consumer Data Right work being undertaken by MBIE, and the draft bill.

MBIE discussed what data the work is focussed on. When a business provides goods and services about us, they also hold information on us. This will be made accessible and guides standard formats in which data will be exchanged on request, where the user is easily able to turn off access at any time. The intention is to create data as a resource for the customer, raising questions of are we happy to have this as an option? Are the settings of the current Privacy Act enough?

The draft bill does not contain enforcement powers, this will be worked through in the select committee process.

Ethics questions surround how this might be undertaken. The Privacy Act has some protections regarding personal information, should there be obligations on accredited requestors in relation to ethical use?, or at least transparency, on the de–identification of consumer data?

Initial work has been focused on the interaction of the bill with the Privacy Act. Transparency obligations are being included and it was noted that users will not be required to use this method of data sharing. Organisations will be required to publish what they will do with your data, not just what they will be doing for you.

Discussion was held on the limitations of the enforcement provisions in the current Privacy Act and what protections would be brought in with the new bill. MBIE advised that there will be enhanced requirements on consent, as well as additional privacy protections within the bill. Specifications of security standards during data exchange, identity verification before the exchange and a dashboard at both holder and user ends showing what permissions currently exist, are proposed.

There is no scope to amend the Privacy Act as part of this work. It was noted that the Privacy Commissioner and Ministry of Justice would need to consider this piece of work.

Data protection responsibilities and quality metrics were also discussed.

Discussion of Māori Data Governance and sovereignty movements and engagement on the bill were discussed with the members recommending using current existing Māori structures rather than establishing new ones would be beneficial. MBIE noted that they believe that the framework is relevant to all three articles of Te Tiriti, and they are working through how to strengthen this using the recently published Te Kāhui Raraunga Māori Data Governance Model.

The need for the crown to support enabling submissions to be completed was noted and a member provided examples of how this was completed through the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill process. Further involvement than consultation was discussed as key to engagement, and members noted some avenues that may be options for MBIE to approach.

4. Establishment of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation

Emma MacDonald and Fiona Wharton held a workshop with the members of the group focussed on understanding what the group believed that the initial focus of the Centre for Data Ethics and innovation should be on its establishment.

Key themes from the workshop related to:

  • What ethics questions were members commonly asked?
  • What ethics questions should be asked but are not?
  • What was worrying members the most?

Focus areas for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation were proposed as:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Innovation
  • Leadership
  • Guidance.

23 May 2023

Invited to attend

Advisory Group: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Pieta Brown, Russell Craig, Jonathan Godfrey, Jonathan Kilgour, Will Koning; Kate O’Connor, Andrew Sporle, Frith Tweedie

Stats NZ Officials: Mark Sowden, Government Chief Data Steward and Chief Executive of Stats NZ; Caleb Johnstone, General Manager – Data System Policy; Emma MacDonald, Director – Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, Stats NZ; Fiona Wharton, Principal Advisor – Data Services; Amelia Campbell, Principal Policy Advisor.

Secretariat: Fiona Sinclair, Governance and Executive Secretariat.

Item contributors

Item Four: Te Tari Taiwhenua – Department of Internal Affairs. Colin Holden, General Manager System Strategy and Initiatives; Tony Eyles, Executive Director Cloud Programme; Adrienne Moor, Lead Government Cloud Programme.

1. General welcome

The Chair welcomed members and officials, and the meeting was opened with karakia.

The members of the group introduce themselves. New members to the group are Andrew Sporle, Jonathan Kilgour, Pieta Brown, Jonathan Godfrey, Russell Craig, and Frith Tweedie.

Mark Sowden as the Chief Executive of Stats NZ and the Government Chief Data Steward introduced himself and his goals for the Data Ethics Advisory Group.

2. Committee administration

The minutes of the meeting held 23 February 2023 were approved

Members declared relevant interests.

3. Case studies

The Chair introduced previous case studies of items presented to the group for discussion.

Discussions were often more helpful if they were early in their establishment. The Group’s model of engagement has shifted to reflect this.

Discussions were more useful when there was a degree of preparation work was undertaken prior to agencies coming to the Group. In some instances, it was good to see that the privacy commissioner had been approached for advice and a privacy impact assessment completed. This allowed for good discussion to be held and substantial feedback provided.

Discussion was held regarding the need for the Group to not be a rubber stamp at the end of the project, and the preparation work required ahead of projects attending the group.

The long–term impacts of the Group’s advice were discussed and a need to ensure that there is follow up to see how agencies have used the Group’s advice.

Thematic points and principles could be taken from the Group’s consideration of different projects, and these could form the basis of advice released by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (when established) for advice and guidance to be developed.

Options available for escalating where advice was not taken in by agencies were discussed. Noting that the group can bring this to the attention of the GCDS for discussion with Agencies. These could be incorporated in advice from the GCDS or the GCDS could raise the matter with relevant agencies if required.

Discussion was held regarding the amount of information that comes with the attendees that goes to the group, and it was noted that the secretariat works with the agencies to prepare them prior to attendance.

4. Closing

The Chair thanked the new members for their joining of the group.

Discussion was held regarding the next meeting to be held on 21 June 2023, and the need to potentially extend the meetings in timing now that the membership is re–established.

23 February 2023

Invited to attend

Advisory Group: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Kate O’Connor, Dr Will Koning.

Stats NZ Officials: Caleb Johnstone, General Manager – Data System Policy; Tennille Maxey, Manager – Data System Policy; Fiona Wharton, Principal Advisor – Data Services.

Secretariat: Fiona Sinclair, Governance and Executive Secretariat.

Item contributors

Item Four: Tahia Eaquab, Chief Data Steward; Louise Pirini, Manager Analytics; Tracey McFadyen, Data and Integration Architect. Social Wellbeing Agency

Item Five: Jade Mackay, Principal Analyst – Te Manatū Waka, Ministry of Transport.

1. General welcome

The Chair welcomed members and officials to the meeting and a karakia given.

2. Committee administration

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

The action register was noted, and updates provided.

For the Social Wellbeing Agency discussion, the Chair noted a cross over with his role at Vic Uni and previous work with the Chief Data Steward. It was agreed that the members would lead the discussion and feedback on this item.

3. DEAG reset

The new terms of reference were discussed and endorsed by the group members.

A proposed approach to recruiting new members was presented for discussion and endorsement by the members to go to the Government Chief Data Steward.

4. Social Wellbeing Agency

Officials from the Social Wellbeing Agency joined to discuss the MahiTahi Analytics Platform developed alongside Te Puni Kokiri and discuss what ethical oversight and processes may be needed around this shared analytics platform.

MahiTahi is an analytics platform developed by SWA in partnership with Te Puni Kokiri (TPK). As small agencies there is limited funding available for data analytics infrastructure and SWA is reliant on the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) and associated service. However, it is not easy to integrate additional datasets to the IDI. MahiTahi allows public source data from different data sources and domains to be held on the one platform. Other agencies can bring in their own data sets to create time series and perform analysis.

The Committee’s queries to the project team focused on.

  • Whether the data could become identifiable
  • What level of detail can data be reported at?
  • The types of data sources
  • Current use cases for the data.

The Committee’s feedback centred on the need to establish a strong governance framework for the use of the platform. Similarities were noted to research ethics, with the ‘Growing up in New Zealand’ Study recommended as having a strong governance framework where the data is treated as taonga. SWA could look to replicate aspects of this framework.

The self–service aspect of the platform was discussed. A committee member noted that some data will need to be protected for specific use, while other data may be made accessible more readily i.e., different tiers of data. Differing levels of self–service will be needed as part of the governance framework and for specific use cases.

5. Ministry of Transport

Discussion was held on ‘Project Monty’ – an agent–based transport model simulating a ‘day in the life’ of a New Zealander in the transport system, and how the concept of ‘fairness’ is estimated across government.

This simulation is used to predict the impact of interventions (i.e., policy changes). Impacts on different strata of society can be predicted, under different conditions. The simulation takes a significant time to run, and it is not practical to do this within the Integrated Data Service environment governed by Stats NZ.

Currently the model seeks to optimise utility for each individual. Discussion is emerging on whether an intervention is ‘fair’ on a strata of society.

Discussion was held on the estimation of fairness.

  • Notions of utility and fairness in how a person gets to maximise their utility in a day. Transport is a means to those ends. Is the system allowing them to achieve their goals?
  • Notions of rights and justices: people have the right to get to where they need to go, and the environment and future generations also have rights.
  • Distributive justice considers how to apportion limited resources. For example, is it better to give more to those already disadvantaged to help them achieve a similar level to others, or to provide the same to everyone?

The Committee members noted that the primary research work being undertaken is going to be an experimental and iterative process, and continuous improvement will be based on this, ensuring that feedback loops are closed, and parameters are not missed. A Committee member noted that the New Zealand Centre for Sustainable Cities (Otago) has recently published a paper ‘Fairness in Transport Policy: A New Approach to Applying Distributive Justice Theories’ by Edward Randal that may be of interest to the Ministry. The Ministry may also find it helpful to draw on the Centre’s expertise.

6. Closing

The group discussed next steps and the meeting was closed with a karakia.

30 November 2022

Invited to attend

Advisory Group: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Kate O’Connor, Dr Will Koning.

Stats NZ Officials: Caleb Johnstone, General Manager – Data System Policy; Tennille Maxey, Manager – Data System Policy; Gillian Parry – Contractor, Data System Policy; Caleb Stone, Data Broker – Integrated Data.

Secretariat: Ellen Cox, Governance and Executive Secretariat

Item contributors

Item Two: Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). Justin Rowlands, GM Te Pou Manawa, Tim Waldron, Manager Business and Market Development, Grant Stark Principal Advisor – Identity and Biometrics

1. General welcome

The Chair welcomed members and officials to the meeting and a karakia was given.

2. Digital Identity – Te Tari Taiwhenua – Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)

No conflicts of interest were noted for this item. Though one member is working on a project to migrate identity data with DIA.

A presentation was given, and discussion was held with DIA representatives on their work with Identity Check and plans regarding Digital Verifiable Identity Credentials (VICs). The purpose of the Digital Identity project is to unlock Aotearoa’s digital services ecosystem and economy.

Managing, maintaining, and storing official identity information is a key service for DIA and they regard this information as a taonga. The intention is to give control to individuals of their information.

There is a recognition that there is a growing interest from the public on the social licence for use of biometric/facial recognition by the public and private sectors, and it is important to navigate this context with care.

The benefits of the project include time and money savings, removing the constraints to access services, and ensuring agencies are only collecting the information they need.

The Groups discussion identified issues on the following topics, Digital inclusion and equity, risks and benefits, engagement with key communities, trust and confidence in the government holding personal data, fraud protection features and accessibility, Digital Trust Legislation before the House, and similar digital identity issues over overseas and lessons learnt.

3. Committee administration

Approval of previous meeting minutes and forward agenda reviewed

4. Update on the Centre of Data Ethics and Innovation Proposal

Stats NZ Officials provided the group with a verbal update on the proposed Centre of Data Ethics and Innovation

5. Levers available to the DEAG

Discussion was held regarding the support available to DEAG under the terms of reference

6. Review of the Terms of Reference

An updated Terms of reference was presented to the group for feedback and discussion. Further updates were requested.

7. Meeting review and close

Next steps were discussed and meeting closed.

04 October 2022

Attendees

Advisory Group: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Kate O’Connor, Dr Will Koning.

Stats NZ Officials: Dr Craig Jones, Deputy Chief Executive – Data System Leadership; Caleb Johnstone, General Manager – Data System Policy; Tennille Maxey, Manager – Data System Policy; Jess Buck – Senior Advisor, Data System Policy; Caleb Stone, Data Broker – Integrated Data.

Secretariat: Ellen Cox, Governance and Executive Secretariat

1. General welcome

The meeting was opened with a welcome and karakia from the Chair. Introductions were made.

2. Context setting

An update on the current direction and priorities for the Data Ethics Advisory Group and the role of the GCDS in fostering trust and confidence and broader work to improve visibility and examine settings for the ethical use of data was held. It was noted that the group was seen as an important mechanism to support trust and confidence in addressing complex data use issues.

3. Operating model

This session focussed on the operating model for the group and refreshing the approach taken to providing advice to initiatives.

It was agreed that that agencies should be encouraged to engage with the group at early stages of an initiative when they are more formative, rather than be seen as a compliance exercise or too late to influence the direction. This way the Group would have meaningful impact and provide a space for agencies to test thinking as it develops in away that improves effectiveness and reduces risk

4. Membership

Current membership of the group was discussed.

The Secretariat and Stats NZ Officials were asked to prepare a draft appointments process for new members.

5. Forward agenda

A discussion was held focussing on the forward agenda for the group, and projects identified of being of interest to the group were noted.

6. Meeting review

Next steps were discussed, and a review of the Terms of Reference was requested of the Secretariat.

03 June 2020

A summary of the meeting agenda - 03 June 2020

Attendees

Advisory Group: Professor Juliet Gerrard (Chair), Dr Amohia Boulton, Dr Will Koning, Dr Nessa Lynch, Kirikowhai Mikaere, Professor Colin Simpson, Kate O'Connor, Dr Ang Jury

Stats NZ secretariat: Dale Elvy, Travis Ancelet, Nienke van Dijken

(Virtual meeting on Teams)

1. General welcome

Professor Gerrard opened the virtual meeting of the Group by welcoming all of its members.

2. Declaration of conflicts of interest regarding the Ministry of Education’s Equity Index agenda item

There were no conflicts of interest declared for this item.

3. Finalising guidance on the Ministry of Education’s Equity Index submission

The Group discussed changes made to their draft guidance based on additional information and detailed discussions with the Ministry of Education. Members agreed that some minor changes were needed before the guidance could be finalised. Members agreed that once these modifications were made, the guidance could be finalised.

4. Discussion about potential additional support for considering Stats NZ’s submission on the Ngā Tikanga Paihere framework at the Group’s next meeting

The Group briefly discussed the Stats NZ submission and then identified several potential experts who could provide valuable input related to the item.

The Group agreed to provide the secretariat with the names of some experts so that the secretariat could coordinate the experts’ attendance at the next meeting.

5. Discussion about papers commissioned by the Group on international data ethics frameworks

The Group discussed papers produced for them on international data ethics frameworks and a case study of a similar data ethics group in the United Kingdom.

The Group agreed that the papers provided useful context and would be beneficial for them moving forward. They also agreed to publish the papers on the Group’s website.

6. Priorities for the next meeting and any other business

Members reviewed the current forward agenda of items submitted to the Group and outlined the items they consider high priority for discussing at future meetings.

The meeting closed with members indicating that they would like to have a full meeting in-person in the near future.

19 May 2020

A summary of the meeting agenda - 19 May 2020

Attendees

Advisory Group: Professor Juliet Gerrard (Chair), Dr Amohia Boulton, Dr Will Koning, Dr Nessa Lynch, Kirikowhai Mikaere, Professor Colin Simpson

Stats NZ secretariat: Dale Elvy, Travis Ancelet, Nienke van Dijken

Apologies: Dr Ang Jury, Kate O’Connor

(Virtual meeting on Teams)

1. General welcome

Professor Gerrard opened the first virtual meeting of the Group by welcoming all of its members.

Apologies were extended on behalf of Dr Ang Jury and Kate O’Connor.

2. Declaration of conflicts of interest regarding the Data Ventures agenda item

Professor Simpson declared a potential conflict of interest regarding costings he received from Data Ventures for inclusion into two research grant proposals. It was noted that the costings and research proposals were undertaken after the Group had developed draft guidance for Data Ventures. Based on this, the Group unanimously agreed that there was no need for Professor Simpson to be excluded from the discussion on finalising the guidance.

3. Finalising guidance on the updated Data Ventures Population Density Project submission

The Group had a brief discussion about the draft guidance they had developed for Data Ventures around their Population Density Project. Members agreed to finalise the guidance after one minor change was made.

4. Update about new and outstanding items for the Group’s agenda

The secretariat provided the Group with a summary of the submissions received to date and an overview of current discussions with agencies interested in bringing their work to the Group.

A short prioritisation discussion was had to inform the items that would be considered in the Group’s next meeting.

5. Discussion about the Group’s membership

Ahead of the Group’s formal review, the Group discussed how they feel the year has gone, how they should operate in the future, and whether the current membership structure of the Group is appropriate.

The secretariat began the discussion by providing a summary of how the Group was established and its members were selected. The discussion then shifted to the upcoming review of the Group and the secretariat provided a brief overview about how the review would operate and what the Group could expect the review to consider.

Once the scene-setting was complete, each member of the Group provided their insights about the Group’s operation and what should be considered as part of the Group’s review. Common themes brought up by members included:

  • whether the Group’s advice should be binding;
  • the Group’s relationship with the Digital Council for Aotearoa New Zealand;
  • whether the Group should provide its guidance to Ministers as well as officials; and
  • whether the Group could also be commissioned by Ministers.

The Group also had some discussion around making sure that their role was never seen as creating too many obstacles or overly critical. It will be important to get the right balance.

6. Opportunity to discuss response to COVID-19

Group members had a free-form discussion about their experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and reflected on the changes they had seen in their professional and personal environments.

Members also shared their perspectives on how they were seeing data used locally and internationally.

7. Other business and close

The meeting closed with members indicating their willingness to have another virtual meeting in around a fortnight.

20 November 2019

A summary of the meeting agenda - 20 November 2019

Attendees

Advisory Group: Professor Juliet Gerrard (Chair), Dr Amohia Boulton, Dr Ang Jury, Kirikowhai Mikaere, Dr Nessa Lynch, Kate O’Connor, Professor Colin Simpson.

Item contributors:

  • Damian Edwards, Associate Deputy Secretary, Education System Policy, Ministry of Education
  • Professor Stuart McNaughton, Chief Education Science Advisor
  • Philip Stevens, Group Manager Analysis, Research and Evaluation, Ministry of Education
  • Allan Vester, Former Principal, Edgewater College and Chair, Sector Reference Group for the Equity Index.

Guest experts:

  • Dr Ana Koloto, Director Research and Evaluation, Ministry for Pacific Peoples
  • Anna McDowell, Senior Manager - Integrated Data, Stats NZ
  • Professor Richie Poulton, Professor of Psychology, University of Otago.

Stats NZ Secretariat: Travis Ancelet, Sabena Blackhall, Dale Elvy.

Apologies: Dr Will Koning.

1. Welcome and introductions from the Chair, Professor Juliet Gerrard

Professor Gerrard opened the day by welcoming our returning members and reaffirming the Group’s role as a friendly mechanism established to advise rather than chastise.

The Group also extended their welcomes and made introductions to the Group’s new member, Kirikowhai Mikaere, who will fill the seat reserved for a representative of the Māori Co-Design Group whilst it is being established.

Members formally co-opted Dr Ana Koloto, Director Research and Evaluation at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, into the Group for this meeting. Dr Koloto was invited to attend this meeting at the request of the Group Chair. This was to ensure that the perspective of Pacific Peoples was adequately represented given the potential impacts of the Equity Index.

Apologies were extended on behalf of Will Koning who was unable to attend the meeting.

2. Review of Previous Meeting

The Group discussed whether they were happy with how the previous meeting had been run and where they thought improvements could be made. Through discussion members requested:

  • more time be allocated for discussions with item contributors on future agendas
  • that contributors be advised to keep presentation short to maximise discussion time
  • a facility for a post-meeting follow-up teleconference call ahead of finalising feedback to agencies
  • that future meetings were longer to allow for at least two items to be discussed by the Group
  • that the cover sheets for completed submission forms be changed to improve clarity and ease of reference.

Members considered and approved the move to a 2-stage triage format for receiving submissions. This would involve submitting agencies completing a short form to allow the Group to make decisions on whether and when an item makes it onto a meeting agenda. Successful agencies would then complete a longer, more detailed form closer to the date of the relevant meeting to ensure up-to-date information for discussion.

Members discussed the work they were hoping the Group’s new intern would undertake. The intern is currently anticipated to undertake an international stocktake of similar groups and their work, and produce a paper for the Group’s use and reference. The scope of this work will be refined in discussion with members.

3. Discussion of updated materials and documents

Members approved the Group operating documents:

  • Terms of Reference
  • Terms of Membership
  • Operating Model
  • Submission Form(s).

Please note that, in variance to the agenda provided, the Group used the remainder of the time set aside for approving documents to discuss their questions on the Equity Index ahead of meeting with Ministry of Education representatives. 

4. Declaration of conflicts of interest relating to upcoming agenda items

There were no conflicts of interest declared ahead of discussing the Equity Index.

5. Discussion of item: Equity Index

The Group was provided with a presentation on the Equity Index being developed by the Ministry of Education. This was led by Damian Edwards, who was supported in his presentation by Philip Stevens, Stuart McNaughton, and Allan Vester.

Members queried several aspects of the Index before deliberating what they had heard, in private without the item contributors present.

The Group identified some areas where they required further information from the Ministry of Education ahead of formulating their advice and this was requested by the Secretariat following the meeting.

6. Priorities for the next meeting and any other business

The meeting closed with members requesting that a teleconference call be set up between members ahead of delivering their final guidance so that they could discuss the additional information requested from the Ministry.

Members also reviewed the current forward agenda of items submitted to the Group and outlined the items they consider high-priority for discussing at future meetings.

11 September 2019

A summary of the meeting agenda - 11 September 2019

Attendees

Advisory Group: Professor Juliet Gerrard (Chair), Dr Amohia Boulton, Dr Ang Jury, Dr Nessa Lynch, Dr Will Koning, Kate O’Connor, Professor Colin Simpson

Guest expert: Liz MacPherson, Government Chief Data Steward

Item contributor: Robert Chiu, Data Lead, Data Ventures

Stats NZ secretariat: Sabena Blackhall, Dale Elvy

1. Welcome from the Government Chief Data Steward, Liz MacPherson

Liz MacPherson opened the day with her ambitions for the Group, grounding members in its origin, development and the role she sees it fulfilling in the data landscape.

Liz then provided an overview of the wider landscape in which the Group sits, highlighting existing ethics framework and initiatives, before highlighting the need to streamline and standardise these approaches – a role she sees the group playing a key part in. 

2. Welcome and introductions from the Chair, Professor Juliet Gerrard

Professor Gerrard built on the foundation laid by Liz, outlining the importance of establishing the Group as a supportive mechanism to guide and improve the ethics of data use across government. She emphasised that, as an unknown, people may have reservations about the Group but that these should be viewed as opportunities.

3. Group welcome and introductions

The Group then delivered individual introductions of themselves outlining their skills, experience and where they felt there is need to add value to the ethics and safeguards of the current data system.

4. Discussion of draft group processes

The Group then focussed on discussing and refining their operations. This included:

  • the Application Form – members were keen for more detail to be provided at this stage and requested that new questions be included on the form such as ‘what ethical considerations or frameworks have you used in developing this project’. They also indicated support to include ethical principles on the form to guide applicants.
  • the Feedback Form – members requested this follow a structure where sections highlight:
       i. what was good about the item
       ii. suggestions for improvement
       iii. where the Group had concerns
       iv. where they were satisfied
       v. when it would be appropriate to check back in with the Group.
  • triaging items for inclusion on the agenda – members requested that applications be condensed into a table with a high-level summary followed by key time considerations to help guide decisions on what items to discuss. It was also requested that the deadline for applications close sooner so members would have the opportunity to identify and recruit external expertise where appropriate.
  • conflicts of interest – it was agreed that conflicts of interest, both on-going and ad hoc, will be declared at the start of each meeting and the appropriate means of addressing these decided on a case-by-case basis by the Group. It is also requested that the secretariat hold a ‘register of interests’ to better capture potential conflicts.

5. Declaration of conflicts of interest relating to upcoming agenda items

A conflict of interest was declared by Will Koning with regards to his company’s proposed use of Data Ventures products.

  • This was declared at the start and it was deemed appropriate for him to remain for initial discussion and then leave the room at points where the conflict could interfere with the independence of advice given. This was approved by all members and undertaken at the appropriate point in the meeting. 
  • Will was later asked to leave the room so the Group could discuss whether they felt the conflict had been appropriately handled. This was unanimously agreed.

6. Discussion of item: Population Density Project Pilot

The Group were provided with a presentation on the Population Density product being developed by Data Ventures. This was led by Robert Chiu, Data Lead, Data Ventures.

Members queried several aspects of the project before deliberating what they had heard in private, without the Data Ventures representative present.

The Group identified some areas where they required further information from Data Ventures ahead of formulating their advice and this was requested by the secretariat following the meeting.

Group guidance on Population Density Project Pilot

7. Priorities for the next meeting and any other business

The meeting concluded with the Group requesting that updated copies of operational documents be circulated ahead of the next meeting.

Top