Assimilation Policy comparisions across Indigenous cultures

1. Compiled by Dr Rawiri Waretini-Karena
Author Andrew Armitage

2. He hōnore he korōria ki te Atua
He maungārongo ki te whenua
He whakaaro pai ki nga tāngata katoa.
Hangā e te Atua he ngākau hou
Ki roto ki tēnā ki tēnā o mātou
Whakatōngia tōu Wairua Tapu
Hei āwhina hei tohutohu i a mātou
Ake ake ake
Amine

3. • 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.

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

5. 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).

6. • 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).

7. 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).

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

9. 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 policy
2. The labelling of aboriginal people
3. The principle institutions of government policy
4. The separation of children from their parents
5. The effects of regional and demographic differences
6. The recovery of aboriginal, first nations and Māori peoples.

10. • 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 other
4. Paternalism- which occurs when one society governs the other
5. Integration- which occurs when single institutions are developed and racial
or ethnic origin ceases to be recognised
6. Pluralism-which occurs when more than one ethnic group is recognised as
having a right to continued recognition. (Armitage, 1995, p.8).

11. • Any discussion around the objectives and
phases of social policy?
• The next slides will highlight six different
phases of assimilation

12. • 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).

13. Definition of Aboriginality across three countries
Policy 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 Zealand
Integration 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

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

15. • 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.

16. • 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.

17. Government of aboriginal land policy
Policy period
Australia Canada New Zealand
Early institutionalised
contact (pre 1860
No 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
Paternalism: protection
period (1860-1920)
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
Paternalism: assimilation
period (1920-1960)
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 Zealand
Integration 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

18. • 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

19. 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.

20. The separation of children from their parents policy
Policy 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
Paternalism: protection period
(1860-1920)
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
Paternalism: assimilation period
(1920-1960)
Management of children in
dormitories was extensive;
estimate of
400/1000 (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 Zealand
Integration period (1960-) Dormitories closed; children
removed by child welfare
Authorises 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

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

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

23. 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 community
2. The remoteness of that community
3. Urbanization

24. • 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

25. • 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

26. Urbanized aboriginal populations in Australia, Canada & New Zealand
Year
Australia Canada New Zealand
1961 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%

27. Children as a proportion of the aboriginal & general population, Australia, Canada & New Zealand
Policy period
Australia Canada New Zealand
Paternalism: protection period
(1860-1920)
Aboriginal children
24/100 (1881)
Non Aboriginal children
39/100 (1881)
Indian children 22/100
Non Indian children 34/100
(1901)
Māori children 34/100
Pakeha children 40/100 (1891)
Paternalism: assimilation period
(1920-1960)
Aboriginal children
22/100 (1933)
Non Aboriginal children
27/100 (1933)
Indian children 30/100
Non Indian children 31/100
(1931)
Māori children 40/100
Pakeha children 31/100 (1936)
Policy period
Australia Canada New Zealand
Integration period (1960-) Aboriginal children
48/100 (1971)
Non Aboriginal children
29/100 (1971)
Indian children 47/100
Non Indian children 29/100
(1971)
Māori children 49/100
Pakeha children 29/100 (1971)
Pluralist period (1975-) Aboriginal children
41/100 (1986)
Non Aboriginal children
19/100 (1986)
Indian children 38/100
Non Indian children 22/100
(1901)
Māori children 34/100
Pakeha children 23/100 (1986)

28. • 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.

29. Modification of child welfare system
Policy period
Australia Canada New Zealand
Legislative Incorporation of the Aboriginal
placement principle into
legislation
Prohibition or restriction of
adoption of Aboriginal children
Recognition of Aboriginal
customary law.
Provision for notice to Indian
bands in child welfare legislation.
Placement principles included in
legislation
Agreement 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 agencies
Publication 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 Zealand
Administrative Recognition of the effects of
child welfare practice on
Aboriginal family life in the Royal
Commission on deaths in custody
Withdrawal of intrusive
investigative policies
Provincial ministry, Indian Band
negotiation to establish protocol
on access to reserves
Department of specialised
service units for Indian families
Support for the training of Indian
child welfare staff
Recognition 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
children
Māori 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).

30. • 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.

31. • 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?

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

33. 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.

34. • 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