With the kind of money it routinely throws around, you'd think that the proposal for a $200 million land-and-cash settlement with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs over disputed past-due payments would be no big thing for our Legislature.

And, if truly it was only about land and cash, it probably would be no big thing. After all, the Legislature has long been on record as agreeing that OHA and its beneficiaries are owed something from the state to support its operations and good works.

The sticker is that just about everyone recognizes this conversation is about more than cleaning up a past-due obligation that has clouded the state's books and bond rating and has hampered OHA operations. Really, there is no way around it. The conversation is about the long-term relationship between Hawaiians and the rest of the state, institutionally and as individual citizens.

Until that conversation clarifies, it's understandable many lawmakers want to dance away from the issue.

Supporters of the proposal, including OHA chairwoman Haunani Apoliona and Attorney General Mark Bennett, are vigorous in their insistence that this plan in no way affects that larger "conversation" about a possible Hawaiian entity and whether it is or is not entitled to anything, let alone ceded lands or their revenue. This is simply an effort to settle a dispute over how much OHA is entitled to under the 1978 Constitution, they say.

Indeed, the legislation enabling the settlement was rewritten to make this point abundantly clear, they argue. But suspicions remain.

Those who envision a Hawaiian "nation" or political entity one day have far more in mind than the few chunks of land and $15 million a year in direct cash support as envisioned in the current proposed settlement. Some want a say over what happens to all ceded lands, those 1.2 million acres or more that are being held in trust by the state.

Others say a settlement might make sense, but they are not sure whether the current offer is (a) enough or (b) appropriate to the needs of Hawaiians. That is, might a settlement include more money for Hawaiian Homes or other such programs rather than putting the cash directly in the hands of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs?

But here's the bottom line: No matter what the current administration says and no matter how sincerely it may believe what it is saying, many Hawaiians do not see this conversation as being simply about cleaning up the past. They see it as about the future, for themselves and for all Hawaiians.

Jerry Burris' column appears Wednesdays in this space. See his blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/akamaipolitics. Reach him at jrryburris@yahoo.com.