What an odd article. The Māori people signed a treaty with the Crown. This treaty was ignored by the government, and still seems to have no legal binding. A tribunal was created to call out breaches of the treaty. This tribunal is independent, was not created by the government, and any finding made by the tribunal can be disregarded by the government on a whim.

Yet at the end of the article, Minister Davis says that a Treaty would be a ‘unifying moment’? Why? Because it means that Indigenous Australians would have to try even harder to be heard?

[–] gila@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree it ends in a weird spot. From my experience as a wetjala/pākehā growing up in Pilbara town with indigenous Australian majority, and having lived in NZ from 2017-2021, I feel that NZ is a better example of cohabitation between indigenous ethnic groups and British colonists, not to mention many other Pasifika and other ethnic groups. I think with my individual frame of reference, the positive impact of actually honouring the treaty over time is clear to see in compared outcomes. Of course, this isn't to say Māori people enjoy equality of outcome to westerners. NZ continues to have a shocking amount of poverty, and I don't have any data to support my comparison favouring NZ. Just a bit of a shame that other than with use of language, the outcomes examined in the article seem totally abstract.

Also, I think the implied equivalence between the treaty of Waitangi and the indigenous Australian voice to parliament is silly and demonstrates an eagerness to forget the bloodiness of our history, which is not equally shared by NZ's. Neither in terms of casualties nor the recency of systemic discrimination.