Kelvin Davis on Married at First Sight and the Treaty of Waitangi

Cabinet minister Kelvin Davis drew on Australia’s Married at First Sight reality television show to explain the enduring nature of the Treaty of Waitangi to Australian public servants yesterday.

“We’re lucky in New Zealand that we have this television show that’s full of rigorous intellectual debate where people come and they debate their relationships,” he joked in a speech in Brisbane.

“You might have heard of it. It’s called Married at First Sight Australia.”

Couples – who marry someone they have never met before – were brought together after the marriage to discuss how their relationship was going. They had to write on a card whether they wanted to stay on the show or go and if either one of them wanted to stay, they had to both stay.

“We actually don’t have that choice,” he said about the Treaty of Waitangi.

“We are in it together and we’re in it together for good and forever. And so we must make it work.”

A nude photo scandal was among issues confronted by the participants in reality TV show Married At First Sight Australia.

Davis was speaking to about 700 participants in the conference on indigenous people run by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. He is Minister for Māori Crown Relations, for Children and for Corrections.

And he was among what compere and Aboriginal journalist Dan Conifer called 20 “Blackfellas” from Australia and New Zealand addressing the conference.

It is a crucial year for Australia which is facing a referendum on whether its written constitution should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders by setting up a Voice to Parliament advisory group. Various states, including Queensland, are in the process of setting up frameworks for truth and reconciliation vehicles and potentially signing treaties with indigenous peoples.

Davis recounted how his ancestor, Whetoi Pomare, signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 but within five years, he had been imprisoned without trial, and his tribe’s land plundered.

Protestors in the 1970s described the Treaty as a fraud, and that was replaced with the call to honour the Treaty.

He said the conflict between the first two articles of the Treaty, the right to govern (kawanatanga) and the right of Māori to retain full control of their resources (tino rangatiratanga) continued. But the third article was the most important, that guaranteed Māori the same rights and privileges as British subjects.

The Treaty Grounds from Te Rau Aroha Museum where the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. Photo / Supplied

That meant Māori had the right to an education that led to outcomes as good as any other New Zealander, and the right to a health system that allowed Māori to live as long as any other New Zealander.

The focus had to be on equity of outcomes, not just equality.

Kawanatanga and rangatiratanga needed to work together instead of bashing heads.

“When we have them working together, as we should do, that’s where we will see the magic happen and we should be able to achieve those aspirations of equity for all New Zealanders.”

Davis told the conference that Australia was living at an exciting time.

“I can’t go back to early February of 1840. I can’t go back to the moment in time, probably one of the most seminal moments in the history of Aotearoa was being determined.

“But let me tell you now Australia, you are in that moment now. You are living your history right now. You are living it as you grapple with the voice to Parliament, your treaty and your truth-telling.

“I couldn’t think of a more exciting time to be in Australia than right now as you make history.”

But he said to think about what future generations would make of their actions today – and to avoid them questioning what they had done.

“What you want for your descendants is for them, your indigenous descendants, to be the most influential, the most educated, the most healthy Australians as a result of what you are doing now.”

Davis said his job as Minister of Māori Crown Relations was to bring the public service from the Pakeha world, across the bridge that was the Treaty of Waitangi, into the Māori world " so that they get to know us as Māori, hopefully our language, our customs, why we think, feel and behave as we do and have the demands that we do as Māori, so that Māori don’t have to continuously justify our world view to Government agencies.”

The Treaty of Waitangi was the bridge between the Māori and Pakeha worlds and public servants needed to be on it somewhere.

As he told a conference of New Zealand public servants soon after taking office: “If you are not prepared as a public servant in New Zealand to cross that bridge into the Māori world, then I question your place in New Zealand’s public service.”

He said his vision for 2040, the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, was to have New Zealanders crossing that bridge “freely in both directions, flicking in and out of our cultural context, flicking in and out of our language from Māori to English freely, easily, simply, [so] it’s not a big deal – it’s just the way it’s going to be in 2040.”

“When we have that, then we will have truly come of age as Treaty partners.”

The voice to Parliament

What is it?

A referendum in Australia to be held later this year – no date yet set - to endorse an advisory group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It arose from the Uluru Statement from the Heart - a petition seeking recognition of a First Nations voice in the constitution. It is being promoted by the new Labor Government of Anthony Albanese. The Liberal Opposition has not decided on its position and wants more detail. The Opposition Nationals oppose it.

What powers would the voice have?

That will depend on the final wording of the referendum question which is expected to be released this month. Albanese suggested last year that the voice “may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.” He has said it would not have a veto over legislation.

What are the objections?

One of the big debates at present is about allowing it to make representations to “the executive” rather than just to the Parliament. There are concerns that extending it to the executive government (cabinet) will complicate it and give greater power not just to the voice, (potentially leading to “co-sovereignty”) but to the courts rather than confining its influence to Parliament, which courts normally steer clear of. At the extremes, some Aboriginals oppose the voice on the grounds it would weaken their claim for sovereignty, and others oppose it on the grounds it introduces a racial element to the constitution.

Does it have widespread support?

No. Polling by the Sydney Morning Herald in January put the support at 47 per cent yes, 30 per cent no and 23 per cent undecided. But if forced to choose between yes or no, support rose to 60 per cent.