Editorial: Waitangi deadline reckless

Opinion

Disagreements dealt with under duress are often settled unsatisfactorily. One side can be left with grievances and a wish to revisit the issue so summarily resolved. For this reason, imposing a deadline on Treaty of Waitangi settlements is likely to be an unprofitable and ultimately self-defeating exercise. The shorter the period before that cut-off date is reached, the greater is the potential for future trial and tribulation.

National and Labour are offering voters different perspectives on the settlements process, although their policies differ far less than was the case 12 months ago. National, which once wanted to settle all outstanding grievances by the year 2000, now wants claims to be filed by next year and all settlements completed by 2010. Labour, formerly opposed to any time limits, announced yesterday that it wants all claims to be lodged by 2008 so that its "timetable" for conducting all settlements by 2020 can be met.

Labour has, of course, been stampeded into a policy reversal by the success of Don Brash's speech on race relations at Orewa last year. It was not slow to recognise the significance of the reaction, and soon began ruminating on a change. Further encouragement for that line of thought was provided by the director of the Office of Treaty Settlements, Andrew Hampton, who told a parliamentary select committee that all major settlement negotiations should be concluded in 10 to 15 years.

Labour's new approach is obviously an attempt to knock race relations off the election agenda. But its policy, as well as being ill-judged, betrays a misunderstanding of why the settlement process irks many New Zealanders. They resent not the principle of compensation for past wrongs or the time that it is taking so much as the use of funds associated with it. They are agitated by what has become known as the treaty gravy train.

The Government, even before Dr Brash's Orewa utterances, moved to address some of this concern. It has sought to accelerate the settlement process by dealing more directly with claimants. Negotiations are being undertaken in tandem with the work of the Waitangi Tribunal, rather than evolving from it. The greater haste associated with this approach raises potential problems, however, and hints at further woes arising from imposed deadlines. For the Crown, there is the temptation to more readily admit treaty breaches, thereby increasing its liability. For iwi, the placing of less emphasis on the tribunal raises the possibility of selling themselves short - and of continuing to nurse grievances.

National's policy of completing all settlements by 2010 is patently unrealistic. The slippage of its earlier timetable says as much. Labour's toe-dipping exercise involves terming 2020 an aim, rather than a cut-off date. Its schedule may, as it says, concur with expectations for all the major settlements. But the complexity of the process has repeatedly undermined previous calculations. Equally, both parties' lodging-deadlines impose unnecessary and unfair pressure, especially given the difficulties associated with mandating in some instances. As such, they are compromising the chance of arriving at durable settlements.

The tension implicit in their policies also overlooks the value of the process as a kind of social safety valve. It is about far more than money. It embodies Maori status, pride and prosperity. It is a process that can and should be expedited, but not so much that it produces a superficial solution and an artificial conclusion.