Goals and time-limits

In an opinion piece in today's Herald, Steve Maharey made a throwaway remark that

it is perhaps time to set a date when all grievances must be settled so we can all move on.

Predictably, this has led to headlines such as "Maharey wants to start treaty clock ticking", suggesting that it is "another potential policy u-turn". That really depends on whether Maharey is talking about setting a goal or a time limit.

Having a goal for settling Treaty claims is a good idea, in the sense that it may motivate the process and give people some idea of how much progress has been made. Having a time-limit, of the "all claims must be filed by next tuesday, and anyone who is late misses out" variety (as promoted by ACT) would be grossly unjust. It's simply an attempt to use procedural rules to limit claims and thereby avoid righting past wrongs.

Justice sometimes takes time. Of course we should attempt to do things as quickly as possible - "justice delayed is justice denied" - but we shouldn't rush the process at the expense of justice, which is what the opposition seems keen on.

Unfortunately, there are problems with both goals and time-limits. Both ignore the fact that the Treaty still binds both parties, and that therefore new claims could still arise (for example, if improperly handled, the seabed and foreshore issue is likely to end up in front of the Waitangi Tribunal). And speeding up the process will necessarily require commiting greater financial resources, rather than allowing us to spread the spending over time - which may lead to even greater resentment from pakeha over "more spending for Maori".

I hope that Maharey is only talking about setting a goal. But that should become clear in question-time over the next few days.

(As for the opinion piece in general, Maharey should probably read the responses to David Goodheart's "Discomfort of strangers" before taking it too much to heart...)