It’s my understanding that the Treaty of Waitangi was made out of an understanding and acceptance of the reality that unlike the aborigines, the Maori had a larger population and a more advanced society and wouldn’t allow themselves to be treated like native fauna or subhumans, not because the British government/settlers wanted to give them land rights and political power. However, the idea that NZ didn’t join the Australian federation out of concern for the Maori and the continued adherence to the treaty contradicts that, so is it true?
If so, what influenced the different attitudes toward native people in either country? Was it a matter of exposure, a perception of the Maori as more civilized than natives in Australia and elsewhere or something else?
__________
VaughanThrilliams: Good question, New Zealand (and Fiji) were considered for Federation into the Commonwealth of Australia. At the Australasian Federation Conference in Melbourne, 1890, the NZ delegate was Captain W. R. Russell and he gave four reasons why NZ shouldn’t join:
1. A harsher geography had given New Zealanders a different psychology (more self-reliant and tough)
2. NZ was a small exporting nation and would be vulnerable to tariffs imposed by the big three states Queensland, NSW, and Victoria. (This was also a concern to the much smaller colonies of Tasmania, SA and WA who all aggressively supported Free Trade parties in the early Australian elections. Surprisingly Sydney also supported Free Trade parties while Victoria, rural NSW and to a lesser extent Queensland did indeed support protectionist parties)
3. A national army centered on Australia would be little use in the event of a naval invasion of NZ and would thus be a needless expense
4. And yes **the Maori: “[Australia has] dealt with native races in a much more summary manner than we have ventured to deal with ours in New Zealand”. From my reading he was concerned that Australia’s lack of understanding of the delicate Maori situation could trigger a resumption of warfare if Australians were in charge of policies.**
There was also a royal commission that rejected the prospect that I’m struggling to find. Sheer distance was another huge issue and almost prevented Western Australia joining before the promise of a train-line across the Nullabor was made. Finally lots of the centralisation arguments didn’t make sense while the British Empire existed (why have the Australian high court when you had the British privy council? Why worry about shared defense when the Royal Navy far outstripped anything Australia could offer?)
What led to differences in policy towards Indigenous Australians and the Maori? I think you hit the nail on the head, the Maori were seen as more civilized and had fought a wars with guns already (the Musket Wars) which probably made them both more technologically advanced and a greater threat to White settlement thus securing a treaty, Indigenous Australians could only make small, low level defences. I believe infectious diseases (e.g. smallpox) also did far more damage to more isolated Indigenous Australians than Maori. I believe political and linguistic differences were the final big issue, the Maori had one mutually understandable language that linguist Samuel Lee translated to English in 1820, Indigenous Australians had hundreds of languages with no mutual understanding thus making communication much harder and not bothered with. I believe these factors were major in causing a distinction between the two countries. Right up until the 1950’s the policies of the Australian government to Indigenous Australians were termed “smoothing the pillow of the dying man” i.e. it was believed Indigenous Australians were literally dying out and should be provided basic comfort to ease their deaths, I don’t believe NZ had anything comparable.
Final point is minor but Australian Aborigines is seen as an out of date term, it’s not shocking but it’s best to avoid. Indigenous Australians or Aboriginal Australians are the preferred terms.
Source: Majored in history and public health in Australia. “Equal Subjects, Unequal Rights” is a good comparative book on the Maori and Indigenous Australian experiences
Matti_Matti_Matti: Also, were British colonies founded by free settlers in Australia (like New Zealand was) any better or worse for aborigines than ones founded with convicts?
HaroldHoltMP: I might add, as a side-note, that Indigenous Australians were not regarded as native fauna. It is a common misconception due to the fact that they were not included in Census data and did not have many rights (such as voting) until much later after Federation. Additionally, some states did deal with their Indigenous population through departments that were also concerned with flora and fauna but Indigenous Australians were never classified as thus.
[Source](http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/10/myths-persist-about-1967-referendum)
Embino: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. Not aborigines or aboriginals.
Whaddaya Say?