For most of the twentieth century, Aboriginal Australians and Maori in New Zealand were treated as second-class citizens under assimilation policy — the idea that indigenous peoples should give up their own culture and blend into the settler majority. After 1945 this began to change, but slowly and unevenly.
From assimilation to self-determination: Government policy in both countries moved (in stages, with setbacks) from assimilation → integration → self-determination, meaning indigenous communities gained more say over their own land, culture and affairs.
Australia: from the 1967 referendum to Mabo
- 1967 referendum — 90.77% of Australians voted to remove clauses in the constitution that excluded Aboriginal people from the census and let the federal government make laws for them; a symbolic turning point, though it did not itself grant land rights
- Whitlam government (1972–1975) — set up the Aboriginal Land Fund and commissioned the Woodward Royal Commission, leading to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976, passed under Fraser, which let Aboriginal groups claim land on the basis of traditional ownership
- Mabo decision (1992) — the High Court ruled in Mabo v Queensland that terra nullius ("land belonging to no one" — the legal fiction used to justify colonisation) was false; this recognised native title, indigenous groups' legal right to land based on continuous connection to it
- Native Title Act (1993) — passed under Keating to give Mabo a legal framework; followed by the Wik decision (1996), which found native title could coexist with pastoral leases
- Bringing Them Home report (1997) — documented the Stolen Generations, Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their families under past assimilation policy; Prime Minister Howard refused a formal apology, a major point of controversy left unresolved by 2005
New Zealand: the Treaty of Waitangi revisited
- Waitangi Tribunal (1975) — set up under the Lange-era Labour government's predecessors to investigate Maori grievances about breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown
- 1985 extension — the Tribunal's power was extended to investigate breaches all the way back to 1840, not just from 1975 onward, under Lange's government
- Treaty settlements — from the late 1980s onward, the government began negotiating financial and land settlements with individual iwi (Maori tribal groups) for historic breaches, alongside the revival of the Maori language in schools and broadcasting
Compare, don't just describe: A strong essay contrasts the two countries: Australia's path centred on land rights through the courts (Mabo, native title), while New Zealand's centred on a standing treaty mechanism (the Waitangi Tribunal) reinterpreting an existing 1840 document. Both moved toward self-determination, but by different routes.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
After 1945, Australia and New Zealand gradually shifted their foreign policy away from automatic loyalty to Britain and toward the United States and their own Asia-Pacific region — a reflection of Britain's declining global power and the two countries' geographic reality.
ANZUS Treaty (1951)
Australia, New Zealand and the United States signed a mutual defence pact, formalising the shift from Britain to the US as principal security guarantor after the Second World War exposed Britain's inability to defend the Pacific.
SEATO (1954)
The South-East Asia Treaty Organization brought Australia, New Zealand, the US and others together against the spread of communism in Asia, echoing NATO's containment logic.
Vietnam commitment (1962–1972)
Both countries sent combat troops to support the US and South Vietnam, honouring their alliance commitments, though the war became deeply unpopular at home by the early 1970s.
New Zealand's anti-nuclear break (1984–1987)
David Lange's Labour government refused to allow US nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships into New Zealand ports; the US suspended its ANZUS obligations to New Zealand in response, splitting the alliance.
Engagement with Asia
From the 1970s–1990s both countries built closer diplomatic and trade ties with Asian neighbours (for example Australia's recognition of China in 1972 under Whitlam), recognising their future lay more with the region than with Europe.
Britain → America → Asia: the direction of travel across sixty years.
Why the nuclear-ships dispute matters: Lange's stance is the clearest example of an Oceania nation choosing an independent foreign policy over its superpower alliance — a genuine break from decades of following Britain then America automatically.
Continuity
- Formal defence ties to a great power (Britain, then the US)
- Involvement in Cold War containment (Korea, Vietnam)
- English-speaking, Western political identity maintained
Change
- Shift from British Empire loyalty to the US-led ANZUS alliance
- New Zealand's 1984 nuclear-free policy defied its own ally
- Growing diplomatic and economic focus on Asia, not just the West
Practice with real exam questions
Answer exam-style questions and get AI feedback that shows you exactly what examiners want to see in a full-marks response.
For most of the twentieth century, Australia and New Zealand's economies depended heavily on selling meat, wool and dairy products to Britain. A single event forced both countries to rethink their whole economic direction.
Britain joins the EEC (1973): When Britain joined the European Economic Community (EEC) — the forerunner of today's European Union — it had to apply EEC tariffs and quotas to trade with non-members, including Australia and New Zealand. Their guaranteed British market for farm exports largely disappeared almost overnight.
| Effect of Britain joining the EEC | Response |
|---|---|
| New Zealand's traditional lamb, butter and cheese exports to Britain collapsed | Sought new markets in Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific; diversified farm produce |
| Australia's wool and wheat trade with Britain shrank | Deepened trade links with Japan, then later South Korea and China |
| Both economies faced the shock alongside 1970s oil crises and global inflation | Muldoon (NZ) tried heavy state intervention ("Think Big" projects); Hawke/Keating (Australia) chose deregulation and floating the dollar (1983) instead |
At the same time, the rise of Asian economies — Japan's post-war "economic miracle", then South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore (the "Asian Tigers"), and later China from the 1980s — created huge new demand for raw materials and food exactly as the British market closed.
- Japan became Australia's largest trading partner by the 1970s, buying coal, iron ore and wool
- Hawke/Keating reforms (1983–1996) — floating the Australian dollar, cutting tariffs, deregulating banks — opened the economy to Asian trade and investment
- APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), founded 1989 — an Australian-initiated forum linking Pacific Rim economies, symbolising the reorientation toward Asia
- By the 1990s–2000s, New Zealand and Australia increasingly described themselves as Asia-Pacific economies rather than distant outposts of Britain
Cause and effect, not just a list: Don't just state "Britain joined the EEC and then trade moved to Asia" — explain why: the EEC closed a guaranteed market, forcing painful short-term adjustment, which pushed governments to build new long-term ties with faster-growing Asian economies.