Davis Kelvin: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:16925] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 5 is titled “Meaning of Whanganui Iwi historical claims” and it states: “In this Act Whanganui Iwi historical claims means every claim (whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered researched registered notified or made by or on the date on which the deed of on-account settlement becomes unconditional under clause 6.1 of that deed) that Whanganui Iwi had at or at any time before that date or may have at any time after that date”. I think that is really important in that we are talking about settling all the claims. This goes back to what I was saying earlier in the debate about the preamble. We need to settle all the claims so that Maori can move away from grievance so that we can move ahead in our lives and not always be looking back. 
I believe that clause 5 is a very telling part of this bill. It says that it will settle every claim from Whanganui iwi and I believe that that is very significant. Throughout Part 1 we see that the word “Wanganui” has been changed to “Whanganui” and that in itself is extremely significant. Many of the people listening and watching will be asking themselves what the big issue is about the letter “h” being included in the word “Wanganui” to make it “Whanganui”. This change recognises that Maori have for a long time been marginalised and it puts this little bit of history right for the iwi of Whanganui. 
The time has long since come and gone when Maori needed to apologise or ask permission for our language to be spoken correctly written correctly and pronounced correctly. This bill rectifies the fact that for decades—centuries—the word “Wanganui” was used instead of “Whanganui”. In the Maori language there is no such word as “wanga”. That sounds more Aboriginal than Maori. From my understanding “Whanga” means a bay and “Whanganui” means a large bay. There is no such thing as a large “wanga” whatever that may be. 
The other meaning of the word “Whanga” is to have to wait. One could say that “Whanganui” means a long wait or a big wait. The people of Whanganui have had to wait a long time for the wrongs of the past to be righted. I remember a kuia up north saying that when she hears a Maori word she can visualise the word in her mind and she sees a picture rather than a word. She said: “You can’t actually see a wanga because it doesn’t exist.” That is basically saying that Wanganui as the iwi of Whanganui know it does not exist. It denies their history and in itself is worthy of I believe if not a grievance then certainly anger at being marginalised. I believe that this bill by changing the word “Wanganui” to “Whanganui” rectifies that little grievance. 
Another word mentioned in the bill is “Kaitoke”. It would be interesting to get an understanding of where the word “Kaitoke” comes from. As New Zealanders we all know that “kai” means food or to eat but I would guarantee that most people do not understand what “toke” means. Where I come from a “toke” is a worm. So there is a bit of history there and I guess a bit of a story that remains untold to the wider public of New Zealand that somewhere along the line somebody has been eating worms. That sounds quite gross but I would say that there is a very deep and meaningful legend and story behind that that deserves to be told and shared. I believe that in schools these legends and stories about the naming of areas and the history behind that should be part of the school curriculum so that being Maori and the Maori way of life is not strange to New Zealanders but is something that is shared with all New Zealanders. All schoolkids should grow up understanding a Maori perspective on historical areas and events in their geographic region. I think that would do a lot to break down the misunderstandings and tensions that arise simply because people do not understand the Maori perspective and the Maori point of view. 
I will go back and mention something I have mentioned in this House before: New Zealand is like a river. On one bank of the river is the Maori part of New Zealand and on the other bank is the non-Maori part. The Treaty of Waitangi which I mentioned in the preamble is a bridge that connects the two sides. Over the decades and the centuries most Maori have crossed that bridge and stepped into the non-Maori side of New Zealand. They understand the language the customs and the ways of doing things. The question that has been asked is how many non-Maori have crossed on to the bank on the Maori side and seen New Zealand from our point of view. Some but not many Pakeha have crossed over. Just about every Maori in New Zealand has crossed over and understands and feels confident in walking on the Pakeha or the non-Maori side of that river. 
With that I will close by reiterating that it is great that under clause 5 this bill looks to settle all Whanganui iwi historical claims. Kia ora.