Comparing the policy of Aboriginal Assimilation in Australia, Canada and New Zealand

COMPARING THE POLICY OF- ABORIGINAL ASSIMILATION:

AUSTRALIA, CANADA & NEW ZEALAND

Compiled by Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena

Author Andrew Armitage

KARAKIA TIMATANGA

He hōnore he korōria ki te AtuaHe maungārongo ki te whenuaHe whakaaro pai ki nga tāngata katoa.Hangā e te Atua he ngākau houKi roto ki tēnā ki tēnā o mātouWhakatōngia tōu Wairua TapuHei āwhina hei tohutohu i a mātouAke ake akeAmine

LEARNING OUTCOMES

• To identify assimilation policies in Australia, Canada and New Zealand

• To examine similarities and differences between the different policies

• To explore issues of assimilation that have generated from the policies

• To analyse to analyse the impacts of policies across three countries

• To evaluate the learning's.

INTRODUCTION

• What are your understandings of the assimilation policies of Australia, Canada & New Zealand?

BACKGROUND:

Andrew Armitage wrote the book Comparing the policy of Aboriginal assimilation in Australia, Canada and New Zealand stating that;• The aboriginal people of Australia, Canada & New Zealand became

minorities in their own countries in the nineteenth century.• The expanding British Empire had its own vision for the future of these

peoples.• They were to become civilised, Christian and citizens- in a word,

assimilated.• Comparing the policy of Aboriginal assimilation provides that first

systematic and comparative treatment of the social policy of assimilation followed in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

• Australia began by denying the aboriginal presence, Canada by registering all ’status Indians,’ and New Zealand by giving all Māori British citizenship. (Armitage, 1995, p.1).

REASONS FOR COMPARING POLICIES IN THREE COUNTRIES:

• Each country has an aboriginal policy which is a major subject of debate.• In each country, the aboriginal minority is challenging the fundamental

assimilationist objectives of social policy.• These countries share a common colonial heritage• The origins of aboriginal social policy which each country implemented

can be traced to the thinking of the 1837 House of Commons select committee on aborigines.

• Each of the countries has a similar legal base derived from British common law.

• All three countries are developed welfare states, their principal assumptions with respect to social policy, and the principal measures which each support are similar. (Armitage, 1995, p.8).

REASONS FOR COMPARING POLICIES IN THREE COUNTRIES:

These common provisions permit comparisons between mainstream and aboriginal services in each country.In each country, child welfare policy has been and remains a deliberate part of the general framework of aboriginal policy.Australia, Canada & New Zealand are also developed market economies which places an emphasis on natural resource extraction, management and development.This has led each country to take control of the land away from aboriginal peoples.It has provided good living standards for the immigrant populations which, in each case, are higher than those of resident aboriginal peoples.The aboriginal peoples in each country see themselves as having been robbed of their resources and are confined to those marginal areas that were of little use to the settlers.Today all three aboriginal cultures are seeking a review of, and redress for, this process of dispossession. (Armitage, 1995, p.8).

DISCUSSION

• How are these context informing your own understanding of assimilation?

SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES

The purpose is to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between the three countries policies towards aboriginal peoples. The following subjects have been chosen for examination:1. The objectives and phases of social policy2. The labelling of aboriginal people3. The principle institutions of government policy4. The separation of children from their parents5. The effects of regional and demographic differences6. The recovery of aboriginal, first nations and Māori peoples.

OBJECTIVES & PHASES OF SOCIAL POLICY

• A prominent feature of the comparison of the aboriginal social policies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand is the similarity of their objectives and of their major policy periods.

• Michael Bandon’s race relations distinguishes six orders of race relations which exist after initial contact:

1. Institutionalised contact; which occurs when two peoples first meet and establish some trading relations.

2. Acculturation-which occurs when two peoples intermarry and develop institutions with roots in both societies.

3. Domination –which occurs when one society takes control of the other4. Paternalism- which occurs when one society governs the other5. Integration- which occurs when single institutions are developed and racial or

ethnic origin ceases to be recognised6. Pluralism-which occurs when more than one ethnic group is recognised as

having a right to continued recognition. (Armitage, 1995, p.8).

DISCUSSION

• Any discussion around the objectives and phases of social policy?

• The next slides will highlight six different phases of assimilation

THE LABELLING OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

• In the 17th-18th century in Canada, a mixed blood Indian/European society of Métis was established.

• In the nineteenth century British power to govern ‘to the ends of the earth’ was interpreted by the house of commons select committee on aborigines in 1837 as entailing a responsibility to impose European civilisation Christianity upon other cultures.

• It required British administrators to determine who was and was not an aboriginal person.

• This was the first step towards administering different policies and laws for settler societies and aboriginal societies respectively.

• Initially the distinction was based on a racial difference hierarchy according to colour.

• The white race was at the top, and the darkest race was at the bottom. The Australian Aboriginal was seen as lower in hierarchy than were the lighter coloured Māori and the Northern American Indian… (Armitage, 1995, p.194).

THE LABELLING OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

Definition of Aboriginality across three countriesPolicy period Australia Canada New Zealand

Early institutionalised contact (pre 1860

Racial recognition; no formal processes

Informal processes & designation of peoples by treaty to receive & collect benefits

Informal process followed by designation of Māori as British subjects by treaty

Paternalism: protection period (1860-1920)

Racial recognition formalised in the power of the protector to designate a person as aboriginal

Legal definition based on lineage & marriage rules, a register established along with concept of enfranchisement

Basic rules of descent established for voting purposes; services extended for Māori on a geographic basis

Paternalism: assimilation period (1920-1960)

Definitions broadened to definition based on the way of life or registration; exempt status established by formal actions

Registration dominant mode of definition; enfranchisement rules changed to remove Indian status application

Specific Māori services provided by application; political commitment to Māori service development; some special provisions

Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandIntegration period (1960-) No definition Registration retained and used

for cost- sharing purposes on provincial services

Special provisions repealed, limited use of blood quantum began to be defined by declaration

Pluralist period (1975-) Definition established by permissive process initiated by aboriginal person & by territory

Register re-opened to person seeking to re- establish lineage

Self-declaration as Māori or Māori descent; tribal descent encouraged

QUESTION

• What does this tell you about he use of blood quantum?

THE PRINCIPLE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

• The management of aboriginal social policy has required each of the countries to develop administrative organizations with necessary authority and resources to govern.

• These organisations take the form of departments of government, educational systems, specialised courts, and government supported church organizations.

• The Australian state governments were able to change Aboriginal land status and boundaries without negotiation due to no land tenure being given (Terra Nullus).

• This was not possible in either Canada or New Zealand and attempts to extinguish residual aboriginal land rights in both countries failed.

• The ideas of the 1837 House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines was influenced by the reports of missionaries, and by lobbying of the Church Missionary Society.

THE PRINCIPLE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

• In each of the countries missionaries went and lived along side aboriginal peoples, carrying the dual message of civilisation and salvation through the Gospel. Their influence was massive.

• Most Aboriginals, first nations peoples and Māori became at least nominal Christians early on in the process of assimilation.

• In Australia missionaries were also local agents of the state protector.• Churches were also contracted by the department to provide residential

schools.• Aboriginal First nations cultures were considered pagan, and their symbols

and ceremonies denounced.• Native languages were translated to assist with the task of the missionaries

but their use by young people was suppressed.• Māori people preserved their religious autonomy and a succession of Māori

prophets provided Māori with an alternative to the official colonial churches.

THE PRINCIPLE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT POLICYGovernment of aboriginal land policy

Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandEarly institutionalised

contact (pre 1860No recognition of Aboriginal land use; Australia considered vacant

Treaties used to set the boundary between the settler society and the aboriginal society

Māori sovereignty recognised overall of Aotearoa


Limited land holdings set aside for mission use as refuge areas

Title to reserve land held by federal government; department assumes powers of land owner to control use

Māori land confiscation after land wars; Māori land court established to ensure sale of Māori land to settlers


Land in Aboriginal communities retained under state control, boundaries changed by regulation, but some major areas reserved

Land use for institutions for Indians; a record of agricultural use kept as an indicator of progress

Specialised Māori agricultural and community services extended to Māori land areas

Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandIntegration period (1960-) Major reservation areas created in

northern territory but arbitrary change in boundaries made general state service extended

Attempts to abolish all reserves rejected; provincial authority extended to reserves; band administration strengthened

Attempt to bring last of Māori land within land title rejected; integrated services extended to Māori communities

Pluralist period (1975-) Recognition of Aboriginal communities and leases in the Northern territory land councils established

New major land agreements in North and recognition of some rights of self-government of Indian land and aboriginal resources.

Waitangi Tribunal begins process of returning land to Māori control; Māori natural resource rights recognised

THE SEPARATION OF CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS

• The 1837 house of Commons Select committee on Aborigines believed that children offered the best means of ensuring that aboriginal peoples would be prepared for the responsibilities of Christianity, civilization, and British citizenship.

• However educational institutions in both Australia and Canada had serious attendance problems.

• Missionaries proposed separating children from their parents for the duration of their formal education.

• This requirement became enforced by the state.• Rates of aboriginal children separated from their parents were 200-

400/1000 in Australia and Canada, and 40/1000 in New Zealand.• Rates of non-aboriginal children separated from their parents were

4/1000 in Australia, 10/1000 in Canada and 4.7/1000 in New Zealand


Many problems appear to have contributed to the high rates of aboriginal child removal:• Workers and courts were unfamiliar with communities that were being

served.• Non aboriginal values and expectations were imposed on the aboriginal

community.• Aboriginal peoples moved from their own community to urban areas

where support for the extended family was not available• Alcohol and substance abuse were common.• In Australia and Canada, aboriginal parents had often spent their

childhoods in institutions.


The separation of children from their parents policyPolicy period Australia Canada New Zealand

Early institutionalised contact (pre 1860

Very low numbers children who had no known relatives cared for by missionaries

Very low numbers, separation limited to voluntary placement of Indian children in residential schools

Very low numbers


The protector became the guardian of all Aboriginal children; proportion of children separated from parents high; no rate data available

Authority to require school attendance in Indian Act; residential schools favoured; rates from 118 (1900) to 281 (1920) per 1000

Māori informal child care systems remain in place; residential schools limited to voluntary attendance at secondary level


Management of children in dormitories was extensive; estimate of400/1000 (NSW 1940)60/1000 (Queensland 1940s)All known half caste children removed

Residential schools expanded; rates up to 375/1000 representing all school age children in some areas of western Canada

Māori care system remains in effect in rural areas; limited use of Pakeha system

Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandIntegration period (1960-) Dormitories closed; children

removed by child welfareAuthorises estimate: 100/1000 NT 1970 & 60/1000 Queensland (1980)

Residential schools closed; children in care of provincial authorities, rates of 62.9/1000 (1975) plus 66.1/1000 adoptions

Rising use of Pakeha child welfare & juvenile justice systems estimate;31/1000 Māori children in care

Pluralist period (1975-) Children placed with Aboriginal authorities adoption less frequent & children-in-care rates falling

Child welfare provided by Indian authorities in some areas; children in care rates fall 38.9/1000 (1990) adoptions restricted

Development of Māori services & change in mainstream policy & legislation reduce use of integrated services

MARJORIE WOODROW HISTORY - MEMBER OF THE STOLEN GENERATION

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YouNSLayA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YouNSLayA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YouNSLayA&feature=related

DISCUSSION

• What are some issues that stand out from Majories story?

THE EFFECTS OF REGIONAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES

There are three major demographic factors which influenced the application of aboriginal family & child welfare policy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.1. The proportion of children in the aboriginal community2. The remoteness of that community3. Urbanization

THE PROPORTION OF CHILDREN IN THE ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY

• The proportion of children in a community is a composite of the birth rate and infant and child mortality rates.

• In each of the countries the combination of factors meant that in the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century the aboriginal communities had a much lower proportion of children than did the mainstream communities.

• The lower proportion of children in the aboriginal as opposed to the non-aboriginal communities in the protection period contributed to the perception that the former were dying out in Australia.

• Note: I have note focused on remoteness as it is not relevant to New Zealand communities

URBANIZATION

• The urbanization of aboriginal people has largely been a post war phenomenon in each of the three countries.

• The steady urbanization of aboriginal people had a significant effect on the care of children in all three countries.

• The movement to urban areas deprived grandparents of contact with parents and deprived parents od support from their extended families.

• In addition, the non-aboriginal child welfare and juvenile justice systems were already well established in urban areas and assumed that aboriginal children should be integrated into mainstream service patterns.

• In all three countries, both factors contributed to the rising proportion of aboriginal children in care

URBANIZATION STATISTICS

Urbanized aboriginal populations in Australia, Canada & New Zealand

Year Australia Canada New Zealand1961 Metro 5%

Urban 20%Rural 75%

Records of the Department of Indian Affairs show the proportion of Indian people living off reserve rising from 15% in 1966 to 27% in 1976.These are low estimates.The records of he department only include status Indians and are incomplete for Indian people once they leave a reserve

Urban 46%Rural 54%

1971 Metro 15%Urban 39%Rural 56%

Urban 70%Rural 30%

1981 Metro 20%Urban 39%Rural 41 %

Urban 84%Rural 16%

Children as a proportion of the aboriginal & general population, Australia, Canada & New Zealand

Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandPaternalism: protection period

(1860-1920)Aboriginal children24/100 (1881)Non Aboriginal children39/100 (1881)

Indian children 22/100Non Indian children 34/100 (1901)

Māori children 34/100 Pakeha children 40/100 (1891)


Aboriginal children22/100 (1933)Non Aboriginal children27/100 (1933)



Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandIntegration period (1960-) Aboriginal children

48/100 (1971)Non Aboriginal children29/100 (1971)



Pluralist period (1975-) Aboriginal children41/100 (1986)Non Aboriginal children19/100 (1986)



THE RECOVERY OF ABORIGINAL, FIRST NATIONS AND MĀORI PEOPLES.

• Aboriginal, First Nations and Māori peoples are now recovering from the effect of intrusive social policies that were developed according to the dictates of the 1837 House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines.

• The turning point came in the 1960’s when aboriginal peoples rejected the introduction o integrated policies.

• These policies were an attempt at a final solution to the issue of the status of aboriginal peoples.

• In the field of social policy, integration meant the repeal of statutes which gave aboriginal peoples a different status from that of non-aboriginal.

• Aboriginal peoples resisted the attempt to extinguish aboriginal land rights, and this led to their rejection of the child welfare policies that had been imposed on them in the names of both assimilation and integration.

• Recovery from these impose policies entail three main tasks: 1) rebuilding roots, 2) modifying mainstream child policies, 3)establishing alternative aboriginal policies.

Modification of child welfare systemPolicy period Australia Canada New Zealand

Legislative Incorporation of the Aboriginal placement principle into legislationProhibition or restriction of adoption of Aboriginal childrenRecognition of Aboriginal customary law.

Provision for notice to Indian bands in child welfare legislation.Placement principles included in legislationAgreement sections in legislation permitting Indian bands to exercise statutory powers and modify policies.Rights for adopted Indian children to obtain information on status

Introduction of family conference procedures in the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989

Administrative Development of the Aboriginal & Islander care agenciesPublication of data on Aboriginal children

Funding of Indian band and tribal councils to develop child welfare services.Publication of data on aboriginal children

Review of Department of Social Welfare by Advisory Committee

Policy period Australia Canada New ZealandAdministrative Recognition of the effects of child

welfare practice on Aboriginal family life in the Royal Commission on deaths in custodyWithdrawal of intrusive investigative policies

Provincial ministry, Indian Band negotiation to establish protocol on access to reservesDepartment of specialised service units for Indian familiesSupport for the training of Indian child welfare staffRecognition of the damage to Indian families in the Manitoba Royal Commission on Aboriginal Justice.Report of the Aboriginal Community Panel liberating our children: Liberating our nation, British Columbia 1993

Introduction of Māori staff into the department as Matua Whangai workers.Development of Māori and Pacific Islander policy and evaluation units.Publication of data on Māori childrenMāori and Pacific Islander reviews of social work competence.Recognition of he damage to Māori families by the Royal Commission on Social Policy

(Armitage, 1995, p.218-219).

CONCLUSION:• This chapter examined many similarities and differences which exist among

Australia, Canada and New Zealand with respect to their aboriginal social policies.

• The similarities are strong and recurrent while differences are more often a matter of emphasis and degree rather than of kind.

• The aboriginal policies of all three countries are hierarchal, with the Australian policies during the paternalistic period being the most severe.

• Canadian policies being similar to Australian policies but providing at least some recognition of the First Nations communities from which children were removed.

• New Zealand policies being mild by comparison depend more an administrative measure as opposed to coercion.

• Finally following the pluralist period New Zealand appears to proceeded further towards developing social policies and administrative procedures which respect aboriginal values and culture than have either Australia or Canada.

DISCUSSION

• What were the main features behind the assimilation policies that impacted on all three countries?

• Who were the main people behind these policies and what role did they play?

• How were some of the policies behind assimilation changed?

EVALUATION:

What did you learn from todays lesson?What was good and why?What was challenging?Ideas for responding to challenges

KARAKIA WHAKAMUTUNGA

Kia tau ki a tatou katoa, te atawhai o to tatou Ariki, o Ihu Karaiti, me te Aroha o te Atua, me te whiwhinga tahitanga ki te wairua tapu, ake ake ake Amine.

REFERENCE• Armitage, A, (1995). Comparing the policy of aboriginal assimilation in

Australia, Canada and New Zealand. University of, Vancouver: Canada. UBC Press. ISBN: 0-7748-0458-0

Education

Comparing the policy of Aboriginal Assimilation in Australia, Canada and New Zealand