Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, countries sharing colonial legacies, have diverged in their approaches to Indigenous policy, recent developments suggest.
New Zealand, historically inclined towards considering universal human rights in confronting colonial legacies, faces a policy shift. While Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) has occasionally positioned New Zealand as a leader in Indigenous-state relations, recent amendments to the Oranga Tamariki Act raise concerns.
The removal of section 7AA from the Act, as per the coalition agreement between the National and ACT parties, has sparked debate. Section 7AA, introduced in 2019, aimed to foster “strategic partnerships” with iwi (tribes) and other Māori organizations to enhance child care and protection. Critics argue its removal may leave Māori communities without avenues to challenge state power, despite persistent deficiencies in Oranga Tamariki’s operations.
Contrastingly, Australia has announced plans to establish a National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese underscores the need to address disparities in out-of-home care for Indigenous children, emphasizing evidence-based programs and Indigenous involvement in policy formulation.
Canada’s Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of Indigenous peoples’ inherent right of self-government, particularly in child and family matters, highlights a different approach. The Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Children, Youth, and Families aims to align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, offering a pathway to just and effective policy.
The declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, underscores Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. While initially met with skepticism by some nations, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, all eventually aligned with its principles.
However, New Zealand’s recent actions, including the repeal of section 7AA, suggest a departure from its commitment to Indigenous rights. Critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to uphold the collective rights and security of Indigenous peoples, as enshrined in the UN declaration.
As similar nations diverge in their approaches to Indigenous policy, New Zealand’s trajectory raises questions about its commitment to Indigenous rights and self-determination in a global context.