@AtaMarie,
I disagree - in fact I will go so far to say that yours is the ethnocentric view when it comes to history.
There may more opportunities now to find out about Maori history, but that simply reflects how lamentably few there have been in the past. But furthermore, what you describe as history is in fact engagement in a living culture. While that is something non-Maori in NZ should do, it is not history as people on this thread would reasonably understand it, and engaging with it is far more of an involved process.
Leaving that aside, even taking into account oral history, the fact cannot be ignored that there is still much more in the UK than in NZ. For example, in 1100 AD, the estimated population of Britain was 1 million, and by then millions others had lived and died on the island: their existence is shown by all manner of archeological remains and excavations that are easy to go and see and are well explained. The population of NZ at this time - previous and current - was 0 - because humans had not arrived yet.
I could draw a similar comparison as of 1840.
A good equivalent in NZ to a castle or an Iron Age long barrow would be a pa site. Almost without exception, there is little to see and little explanation, if you can find them at all. This is partly because Maori built in wood, partly because sites are often unexcavated (for various reasons) and partly because there aren't comparatively that many, and because a lot of what existed was buried under the foundations of colonial NZ.
There is unanswerably less history in NZ for the reasons above, and what history exists is poorly explained. It isn't even taught in the schools. When contributors to this thread say there is "no history" in NZ what they are really saying is that there is an awful lot less, and this point is unanswerably true, and accusations of cultural bias simply won't wash.