I was interested to read Kate Ross' comments on the health of Maori compared
to Indigenous Australians. It is interesting that the overall health of
Maori is significantly better. As you say, Kate, it is interesting to
speculate whether the Treaty of Waitangi has anything to do with this
difference. I wonder whether other specific political provisions have also
had a role: ie- the fact that there are reserved Maori seats in parliament,
and a separate Maori electoral role for those who would prefer to vote this
way.(Is this stipulated by the Treaty?). This seems a very concrete way of
returning autonomy and political power to a community- as well as promoting
a sense of community in the first place.

I was speaking to a friend of mine about these issues, and she made the
interesting suggestion that perhaps the differences in social/political
structure between Maori people and Indigenous Australians made a treaty more
likely in the former case. She wondered whether these same differences in
social/political structure, (due to say differences in distances between
communities) meant that these institutions "weathered the storm" of invasion
differently.  This was certainly not meant to be a value judgement about the
two cultures, nor some sort of social darwinism- I hope it doesn't come
across this way.

Anyway, I too am very interested to hear form anyone with a Canadian
perspective on the role of Treaties in health of first nations.

Melissa Bradley,
Public Health Student, University of New South Wales


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp