Introduction
Australia and New Zealand, in terms of similarities, are two counties that have a lot in common. The foundation of the two countries as colonies has set a similar start, almost identical in terms of what could have made these countries united. However, the subsequent different paths of development showed many differences that outlined the initial differences that were present in the countries background that was not so apparent at first. This essay addresses the issue of differences between those two countries in the context of the contrasts in indigenous as well as immigrant cultures, divergent policies, and practices.
Analysis
Prior to starting the differences between the two countries, the apparent common factors should be mentioned. The first factor is the geographical position, as the two countries are positioned in the same part of the world, where the first apparent difference is the area, as Australia is a large country that occupies a whole continent with the same name, whereas New Zealand is an island country consisting of two major island and many smaller ones. Despite sharing a close position on the world map, the environment of the two countries is rather different where New Zealand is predominantly mountainous with some large coastal plains, and Australia is mostly a low plateau with deserts; fertile plain in the southeast. “(CIA, 2008 The World Fact Book)
Another apparent similarity is the foundation of both countries as an attempt for Great Britain to expand its empire. However, the form of colonization is somewhat different as Australia was a convict colony, and due to the fact that Australia was colonized 50 years earlier than New Zealand, it cannot be said that New Zealand was settled by convicts as mostly it was the place where “a handful of absconders, traders, whalers and sealers and, of course, missionaries ventured” (Mclean 2)
If talking about the indigenous population differences, at the present time, according to the CIA factbook, the aboriginal population in Australia is approximately 1% of 20 million of the overall population, and in New Zealand, this ratio is shown in 7.9% Maori of 4 million of the overall population.
Talking about the indigenous population, it should be mentioned that both the Maori and Aborigine, in addition to the different apparent ratio that they have in the two countries they are different in almost every aspect of history, language, culture, and social organization.
“Maoris have heavily imprinted themselves on the character of New Zealand, whereas Aborigines have not in respect of modern Australia. These issues have profound consequences for further development of the relationship between the two countries.” (Mclean 2)
The existence of monoculture in the Maori race, i.e., one language, one tradition in contrast to the multi-cultural Aborigines who have more than 250 languages and many cultural differences, made the Maori more prominent in New Zealand society. This is shown through the fact that “Maori is an official language of New Zealand. It is taught in schools, used in government departments, and broadcast on television. New Zealand also has a Maori monarch, and a Maori war dance is performed before rugby games. Finally, Maori tattoos are used as a form of tribal expression.” (Australia versus New Zealand, 2008)
In the same context, Australia is behind in its relations to the minority indigenous people, and not only due to the multi-culture of the Aborigines. Such factors as life expectancy, infant mortality, household income, being victims of violence, and sexual abuse are forming a large gap between the indigenous and non-indigenous people in Australia. “Australia compares badly to other similar countries in terms of the ongoing treatment of its Indigenous peoples. In Canada and New Zealand, for example, there have been massive improvements in areas of disadvantage like life expectancy. In these countries, the gap between how long Indigenous and non-Indigenous people live has narrowed from about 20 years to 7 years. This shows that real change is possible – and Australia could do a lot better.” (About Indigenous Australia, 2007)
Another difference that could be outlined is the strategic thinking that was obvious almost since the European settlement. “New Zealand the more committed to the idea of One Empire, One Navy, and Australia moving steadily towards the establishment of its own navy within the Imperial system.” This difference is rather evident in the political relationship of the two countries toward establishing regional concerns. (Mclean 2)
The social dispute between the two countries has also made a contribution in forming the differences in the political system of the two countries. These differences address such issues as compulsory and voluntary voting, preferential voting, first-past-the-post, and a proportional voting system, having a senate or not, and the reservation of seats for particular social groups (Maori); however, in both countries, the queen of England is the head of the state.
The last difference obviously results from the different relations of the government to the minority indigenous people, which are mentioned earlier. (Australia versus New Zealand, 2008)
Despite the differences, one mutual aspect between the Maori and the Aborigines is the “land claims” aspect. In New Zealand, the initial regulations were in a single treaty, the Treaty of Waitangi that was signed in 1840 between Maori and the British Crown. “The Maori have struggled to redress these wrongs ever since and finally achieved success with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975, which established a Commission to hear Maori claims for recent breaches of the Treaty. A further amendment in 1985 allowed claims to be heard back to the original signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.” ( Anderson 2006 The Indigenous Land…)
In Australia, the regulations concerning land claims were described first in Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976. This Act, along with the Native Title Act (NTA) and National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT), was the regulatory law in land claims issues. “The NNTT’s goal is to foster agreements between parties in the hopes that they will reach a resolution outside of court. The NNTT is also responsible for mediating between native title claimants and mining companies seeking to establish grants and exploratory licenses on land subject to native title claims. Whereas agriculture and grazing are no longer as profitable, Australia’s mineral resources are an enormous source of potential wealth for corporations, their stockholders, and the government.” (Wood, Aboriginal Land Rights)
Conclusion
Reviewing the differences between Australia and New Zealand, it becomes obvious that the two countries have a lot in common. However, major contributions to establishing the differences have been made by two vital factors, which are the history of the settlement and the relationship with the indigenous minorities. Another issue is the self-identity of Australian and New Zealanders that makes them distinguish themselves from each other even in common issues such as land claims.
Works Cited
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Fact Book. 2008. Web.
De Blij, H.J. and Muller Peter O. Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts, 12th Edition. : Wiley, 2005.
Mclean, Denis. “AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Two Hearts Not Beating as One.” New Zealand International Review 26.1 (2001): 2.
Reconciliation Network. About Indigenous Australia. 2007. Web.
Wood, Sandy. Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia. Web.
Convict Creations. Australia versus New Zealand. 2008. Web.
Anderson, Robert B & B. Corinne. The Indigenous Land Claims in New Zealand and Canada: From Grievance to Enterprise. 2006. Web.