A short list can be found here - some, such as kangaroo and boomerang, are used globally, most would be familiar to Australians - Wikipedia on Australian Aboriginal words
European Settlement of NZ began in the 1840s, and there wasn’t a great deal of European-Maori contact between Cook’s discovery and the 1820s or so.
The Chatham Islands raid was carried out by a particularly warlike tribe AIUI, and whilst they might have indulged in some cannibalism in the aftermath, the Maori as a people were not cannibals by the time of European settlement in the 1840s and 1850s.
I’m a NZer (originally) and I don’t know all of those words, and I’d almost never use them in conversation anyway. I think it depends where you’re from.
And not everyone in Australia uses the Aboriginal name for Ayers Rock, either. 
You sure abt that? (the European contact part) - dun make me go research, but what I remember was that there was a lot of trading ports long before the treaty - there was a LOT of whaling and sealing for example. I would really need to brush up on timeline before commenting though…my understanding was also that what cannibalism there was, was largely ceremonial after a battle? again would need to check on that.
Wah…there’s actually quite a few more that slip my mind at the moment, new zealand is also rife with Maori place names, and of course maori is one of the official languages (from time to time politicians will give speeches in parliament in maori).
Stuff like Kaikoura (place of seafood), Waimakariri…which is either shallow water of wide water, Rotorua, just to name a few. Then there’s Powhiri (formal welcome), Ten Ah Quoto (help on the spelling?) which is a formal greeting…this is all from memory, and I have never attended any sort of language course, is just what I picked up in day to day living (and I lived in a predominately non Maori area)…
The point to be made though, is that Maori culture and language is a part of everyday life in New Zealand, I would be willing to bet that it is far more prevalent, accepted and understood than Aboriginal culture is in Australia, which to me is one very important measure of the relative levels of treatment of the respective indigenous peoples.
That’s true, although personally I think that Maori shouldn’t be an official language on account of how almost no-one speaks it… that’s probably a debate for another day though.
The thing to bear in mind is that there are over 200 Aboriginal cultures in Australia, versus 3 Maori ones. And of those three, one of them is on the Chatham Islands and doesn’t really count, and the other two are more or less identical to each other for most intents and purposes.
I’m not disagreeing with your premise, just adding some colour to the effect that not everyone in NZ is fluent in Maori and right into Maori culture etc.
Except it’s not really a measure of that at all. Rather it’s an inverse measure of the linguistic diversity of the culture. As **Martini Enfield ** notes, there were thousands of Aboriginal cultures, and at least twice that many languages, compared to two Maori cultures and one language, and that shared with many Pacific Islands.
So of course more Mari words were adopted. When the Moari words for “good fishing spot” (Kaikoura) emigrated into English. This is something that interested the colonists, and learning that word gave fishermen an edge right aorund the coast. In contrast in Eastern Australia the same phrase would have been useless even 200 km away, and so nobody learned it.
This has nothing to do with the treatment of the people. It is simply reflective of how useful the words were. If I were to make a comparison, look at the number of Hindi or Swahili words in the English language. And then compare that to the words from the 200 other Indian languages, or the 500+ African languages. The prevalence of Hindi and Swahili words doesn’t indicate that the Swahili and Hindi speakers were treated any better than the other people in those places. It simply indicates that, because these languages were a lingua franca, white people were more likely to learn phrases from them. The same applies to Maori and Aboriginal languages.
Can I suggest you read “The Future Eaters” by Flannery. He refers to evidence, including archaeological, that cannibalism in the North Island was ubiquitous by the time Cook arrived.
Finding conclusive evidence of cannibalism is tough, but it;s hard to believe that the Maori went form being extremely aggressive and warlike, but not cannibals, to keeping human slaves for food, in less than 50 years.
Do you have any evidence for this?
The Treaty was signed in 1840, and one of the reasons for it was concern over the lawlessness of the European sailors and adventurers who were under no particular authority. Missionaries and other settlers had been arriving from the early years of the 1800s; the first all European infant was born here in 1815, and Busby was appointed Official Resident in 1832. Nit-picking a bit I suppose, but I think it’s not really correct to say that settlement didn’t begin until after the Treaty.
OK. What I was objecting to was your earlier statement that the “Maori weren’t cannibals by the time the Europeans showed up”. They were. They may not have been post-Treaty – it’s not an area I know well, and oddly enough the Maori keeping and eating of slaves somehow got glossed over in Social Studies at school. 
I’d say it is. Up until the Treaty there weren’t a lot of settlers in NZ- it was, as you say, whalers, traders, and missionaries. Kororareka was arguably the South Pacific equivalent of the Mos Eisely Spaceport, and one of the reasons the Treaty was signed was to try and bring some law and order to the whole thing, so that the settlers would come to New Zealand.
It was acknowledged when I was in school- but as a practice that (at least in the South Island) had long died out and was certainly not current practice by the 1840s or 1850s.
Eye witness accounts by Europeans prove cannibalism was a common practice. Cannibalism in New Zealand: Woe to the White Man Who Falls Into Their Hands
European settlement much like the first Cook Island colonists (later to be regarded as Maori) was piecemeal at first and grew exponentially, but nevertheless it existed in form prior to 1840.
A sadly overlooked part of NZ colonial history is the fact that missionaries to NZ needed to evangelise very little. The missionaries rejected all forms of slavery, which was common practice among Maori, and bartered with local chiefs for their freedom (evil colonial bastiches). Upon gaining their freedom they were then introduced to the as yet unheard of idea that, unlike Maori society where slavery meant a lifelong stigma that allowed you to be persecuted and subjugated for the rest of your days, your soul was an untouchable item that no human act could sully or claim dominion over (freaking evil white devils). Upon hearing this concept Maori turned to this in their droves all with the missionaries hardly having to raise a finger. This entire episode is one of the most revealing chapters in NZ history as it demonstrates a recognition, desire and a will to move beyond socially destructive practice yet is roundly ignored by the politically correct history revisionists.
The Maori were sophisticated enough in the dark arts of human social politics that revisionist claims that they were deceived only because of their innocence of such behaviour is utter tosh.
The reading of any history of the early periods of European and Maori interaction will put paid to that load of convenient, contrived and contemporary political history. Special mention must also be made of the highly regarded skill known as “tika” among the Maori and would be regarded as deceptive cunning in English. It was (is?) a prized attribute and many chiefs discovered a kinship and ensuing friendship with European individuals that exhibited this “social skill”.
They understood fully the idea behind conquest and subjugation and carried it out with a brutality and objectivity that is the equal of any warring people. This a direct quote from one of the participants in the destruction of the Chatham Islanders.“We took possession… in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped…”. Modern descendants of these same tribes who carried out this piece of cultural genocide were also some of the most active wailers, hand wringers and teeth gnashers over parihaka and previous colonial actions. I imagine the use of mirrors was heartily employed to practice aghast, innocent and painfully aggrieved expressions.
The rest of the story should be read, it is an eye opener to who exactly was being dealt with by Europeans at the time. Warfare was not carried out by flower arranging, poetry recitals or dance offs.
Everyone had their boots laced up, knew how the game was played and would quite happily hurl themselves onto the field of political and physical combat. Temporary alliances between various groups with selfish political and tribal goals were made and broken regularly. Only a loss would render claims of foul play and innocence of the events at hand. Switch to 2009 and the scene plays itself out again.
The real issue in NZ is contemporary revisionist history to placate the neurotic sensitivities of those who will not allow a new game to kickoff until their team can be awarded a prize. Would they feel more comfortable if traditional Maori practice were enacted upon them instead of the ways of the “evil colonial” (they conveniently overlook the fact that not being indigenous to NZ they are colonists themselves).
This a moot point as this discussion would not take place as no one would be around to argue the opposing viewpoint.
That’s also true, I still hold that the willingness to talk to, learn and hear the words are indicative, (but not conclusive) of a greater respect for the people. I know that there were / are a myriad of maori languages, but I don’t know how similair or distinct they are from one another so I can’t comment on that in any way.
My brother and father live in Australia, just anecdotally I think the Maori currently have a far greater place in NZ cuture than the Aborigine do in Australia. And I think that there are probably many factors in this, but I don’t doubt that one such factor is that the Maori were given greater respect and better treatment than the Aborigine by settlers - for whatever reason.
That’s undeniably true, but I can’t help but feel that the fact the Maori were better organised (and open to European technology) than the Aborigines had a lot to do with it.
I mean, by the time the British seriously started settling NZ, the Maori had guns, and- this is the important part- knew how to use them. The two cultures needed each other- the British needed the Maori to help them farm the land and generally establish NZ as a Civilised Country, and the Maori needed British tradegoods and technology.
And besides the Maori Wars, both Maori and European generally seem to have liked, understood, and respected each other- whereas in Australia the Aborigines were generally regarded as (at best) part of the scenery and, at worse, nuisances to be made to go away.