Comparative First Nations Treaty Experiences Across the Tasman

This analysis offers a comparative perspective on First Nations treaty experiences between Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia. Despite obvious historical differences, comparative analysis remains useful, as all relationships between First Nations peoples and settlers/colonisers are in a constant condition of evolution. It is an essential function of modern society to continue improving and progressing these relationships and the status of First Nations peoples. International law, through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), provides insights on issues such as self-determination. In Australia, the Uluru Statement From the Heart seeks a constitutionally- enshrined Voice to Parliament; a Makarrata process of agreement making between First Nations and governments; and a process of comprehensive truth-telling. The opportunity presented by the Uluru Statement is unique and would have many benefits, including a lasting positive impact on national pride and nation-building. As seen in Aotearoa/New Zealand, having a treaty does not guarantee perfect relationships. The best way forward is through legal pluralism, which refers to the co-existence of more than one legal system within a nation. In respect of First Nations peoples, it means the recognition that there are other ways that social order can be maintained beyond the dominant settler/coloniser legal system.