Paul Keating should take the chance while in New Zealand to look the position of its indigenous people.
While Australia grapples with the High Court’s Mabo decision, New Zealand has been dealing with a similar legal upheaval for nearly two decades.
New Zealand, too, has had a history of dispossession and social and economic deprivation of its indigenous people, with an important difference.
In 1847 Britain and the Maoris signed the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Maoris gave Queen Victoria sovereignty or complete power over government over their land. The Queen agreed to protect the Maori chiefs in the exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. Maoris were to have citizenship. Maori chiefs would sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and the person buying it on behalf of the Queen.
Australian Aborigines had to wait until 1967 to get citizenship.
In the 19th century the treaty was more noted for its abuse than adherence to it. In 1877 Chief Justice Prendergast ruled that it was a simply nullity.
With the revival in white minds of indigenous self-consciousness in the 1970s, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 establishing the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate Maori claims against the Crown from 1975. In 1985 that was extended to older claims. And in 1987 the New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled that Maori and Pakeha (whites) had to act “”reasonably and in good faith” towards each other.
Together they represent New Zealand’s Mabo. The difference being that they were earlier and strong than the Australian equivalents.
The chief judge of the Maori Land Court, and chair of the Waitangi Tribunal, Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie, has made some salient points about the treaty.
The first is that it is not only an expression of Maori rights, but also gives whites a right to be in New Zealand. Australian whites assert a right to be here by settlement alone without reference to an agreement with the indigenous people who owned the land.
The second is that the rule of law is fragile when there is no political commitment to fundamental principles. The second point is illustrated by the way the treaty (supposedly law) was ignored for so long.
Despite that, New Zealand has set up a formal tribunal to hear land-rights and other claims. The treaty gave Maoris the right to keep their “”treasures”. These include fishing and fruits-of-the-forest rights. As settlement of all Waitangi fishing claims, the New Zealand Government agreed to give about $A110 million to buy a half share in a major fishing venture plus about $A400 million worth of fishing quota, controlling a bout a third of the nation’s catch. It will give Maoris (10 per cent of NZ’s population) employment and a significant stake in the economy.
Other land and “”treasure” claims have allowed Maoris involve themselves more in the economy and to get off state handouts.
However, it was not done without controversy and bitterness, including tribal disputes among Maoris. It is perhaps unavoidable on both sides of the Tasman, but that does not mean it should not be done. The essential point is that settlements have to be of long-term social and economic benefit to indigenous and non-indigenous people.
It is no good settling large amounts of land on indigenous people if the land is not used well. There is a solid argument that that is what has happened in the Northern Territory.
There are about 300 outstanding Maori treaty claims. The NZ Government hopes to finalise them all in the next seven years. That can only be done because New Zealand has a formal way of dealing with them through the Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal. There can be no rights without a remedy.
At present in Australia we do not have that. We have Mabo. It is unsatisfactory from all sides, and the Government has recognised that. It has given rise to impossibly high expectations and exaggerated fears, but also to very real uncertainty, to Australia’s economic detriment. The native title given in Mabo is of uncertain character and its enforcement is difficult.
The New Zealand system is not perfect by any means, but at least it points to an ultimate resolution through reasonable compromise of an historic grievance without huge economic damage. While in New Zealand Mr Keating would do well to talk to Pakeha and Maoris to see if their are any lessons for Australia.