Editorial: Treaty about more than pay day

Social Development Minister Steve Maharey obviously surprised some Labour colleagues this week when he suggested in an article for the Herald that a deadline on Treaty of Waitangi settlements may be a way to answer the Brash challenge. "We need to listen to the arguments many people are making in favour of a more united society," he said, " ... it is perhaps time to set a date when all grievances must be settled so we can all move on."

It was a surprise to others, too, that a generally thoughtful article should pick up such a superficial solution. A deadline on treaty settlements was the stated policy of the National Party as long ago as 1990, when the party was last in Opposition and the Waitangi Tribunal's jurisdiction had not long been extended to hear grievances dating from the signing of the treaty. Once back in office, National quickly realised the futility of its declared aim of settling all outstanding grievances by the year 2000. Now, in Opposition, a deadline figures in the party's thinking again.

The idea appeals to those who would consign the treaty to history as quickly as possible, but as a practical proposition a deadline would be self-defeating, for the reason that settlements made under the duress of time are unlikely to stand. They are more likely to create a new round of grievances.

A deadline is unlikely even to placate the discontent that Don Brash has aroused. Most people irritated by special treatment of Maori are not, in fact, opposed to treaty settlements. The majority concede, as does Dr Brash, that wrongs were done and they support the principle of compensation. They wish the whole process was not so drawn out but if a deadline compromised the chances of arriving at lasting settlements, as it would, most people would probably prefer to wait.

The discontent Dr Brash has exposed has more to do with issues that are hard to associate with historical wrongs. Special consultation under the Resource Management Act, for example, and reserved places for Maori in tertiary education are more contentious than treaty settlements. As minister in charge of tertiary education, Mr Maharey should be looking there to show the Government is listening to arguments for a more united society.

The most immediately damaging effect of this whole debate is probably the "perception", as Dr Brash calls it, that Maori graduates are somehow less qualified because they may gain admission to some courses without meeting the general entry standard. Tertiary educators have tried to assure the public that once Maori and other Polynesians take the places reserved for them, no further concessions are made. They must meet general passing standards and their qualifications are as valid as any.

Mr Maharey needs to reinforce that message, perhaps by auditing the courses in some way. He needs also to take every opportunity to explain the need to provide special help for bright young people whose background and social circumstances would not otherwise incline them to higher education. Maori and Polynesians are not alone in that category of need. Mr Maharey must explain why places are reserved for them.

The explanation is that they are notably under-represented in the professions and higher-income brackets. But it is not self-evident to many people that we need worry about ethnic representation at any level. In that view we ought to be simply a colour-blind meritocracy. Mr Maharey and his colleagues need to deal with that view rather than offer a pointless deadline.

In its recognition of Maori status and as a safety valve for social tension, the treaty exercise has a value beyond cash settlements. It is an exercise, as is often said, that must take as long as it takes.