I've been wondering recently about the differences in experience between Indigenous people in Australia and New Zealand in the colonial period.
In Australia from my understanding they were generally viewed as pests, given no rights or consideration when it came to land or anything else and in some cases completely eradicated (e.g. Tasmanian Aboriginals).
In contrast Maori's seem to have fared a bit better. They were still obviously examples of poorly treated in many cases, but just for example the British at least held them in high enough esteem to warrant a signing treaty for their land.
This difference is still evident today where Indigenous Australians make up just 2.5% of the population whereas in NZ it's 6 times that amount. So why, under the same coloniser (Britain), in the same region and time frame did one group get it so much worse than the other?
I have some interest in this subject. Though I am no historian, I have read a scattering of information about government policies on the issue and a few books about the native police. Sources are generally Trove articles from newspapers and goverment sources available. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper. As an aside my direct family line was heavily involved in "frontier police" hence my interest. Some family stories are fairly shocking.
The official goverment line during British rule seemed to have good intentions. I cannot find official references that would imply mistreatment. So in sources you will not find much that would support a direct policy intent. In newspaper articles there are quite a few references from people living on the "frontier" of attacks by Australian aboriginies and calling for repercussions. Of course with a modern viewpoint we can see why people who had occupied the land for approx 60,000 years might resist people stealing their land, but that mindset is absent from what I can see during the 1820 - 1880's.
The mistreatment in my view seems to have occurred due to the failure of government control and the rule of law in a country so staggeringly vast. The "frontier" moved rapidly. Individuals trying to create a farming enterprise in a climate and conditions so harsh that survival became the main priority, took matters into their own hands to "clear the land". Evidence of the massacare of peoples is limited, the information really comes from rumour and local ledgends of what occurred.
Without trying to downplay the actual direct violence, the effect of disease was staggeringly horrific to the population and their society.
One of the few books on the subject matter is reviewed here.