Lawmakers and Gov. Linda Lingle say they hope the 2008 legislative session will resist distractions and controversies that could derail progress on education, a sustainable economy and the like.

Good goal. But that dream may be out the window if lawmakers begin thinking seriously about a historic agreement reached last week between the Lingle administration and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

On the surface, the agreement appears quite straightforward. It grants OHA a package of land and cash to settle longstanding claims that Hawaiians are owed something directly for the use of former Hawaiian crown and government lands now controlled by the state — the so-called ceded lands.

If approved by the Legislature, the state will have formally acknowledged it owes land and cash exclusively to Hawaiians, and Hawaiians alone, as their due share of the income the lands have generated over all these years.

It doesn't matter that the amounts are relatively minor. A precedent would have been struck.

As some have already signaled, this agreement takes care of one issue but leaves open the larger matter of whether Hawaiians are owed further compensation for loss of lands because of the 1893 overthrow and later annexation by the United States. That's where the big stakes come into play.

Resolution of those matters will most likely await the emergence of a Hawaiian "government" or political entity, either through the Akaka Hawaiian recognition bill in Congress or through some other, more organic process.

But when that day comes, and if lawmakers approve the Lingle-OHA deal, people will be able to point to 2008 as the moment when government officially recognized (and paid) Hawaiian claims for losses traced to the overthrow of the kingdom.

Those are the complex and time-consuming questions that legislators must consider before they approve this deal.

The other significant element in this arrangement is that this represents a decision to transfer, by government decision, certain valuable lands from public control to quasi-private ownership by a Hawaiian entity. In short, the agreement accepts the principle that some lands currently held in trust for the public, including Hawaiians of course, can now be alienated and put into the hands of one specific group.

In all, these are far-reaching matters that could occupy lawmaker attention for much of the 2008 session, if not beyond. So much for sticking with the needs and pressures of the moment.

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