The media coverage of the tangihanga for the king was impressive, not just because of its sheer volume.
It allowed those not present, and not necessarily au fait with the protocols to learn about the event and the place of the Kiingitanga movement, to appreciate the solemnity and the lighter moments, and gain an appreciation of the goodwill and manaakitanga on offer to all who arrived at Tūrangawaewae Marae.
Friends and those who might, in other circumstances, be regarded as foes were treated with equal grace and generosity.
It was moving, and although it was sad, it was also an occasion which offered hope. It showed the best of what Aotearoa New Zealand can be.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon drew widespread praise for the tenor of his tribute at Tūrangawaewae in which he acknowledged Kiingi Tūheitia’s commitment to kotahitanga (unity).
Addressing the king personally, he said "you said growing together is crucial. We’ve come a long way as a country and we can go even further".
But before Parliament returned to pay tribute to Kiingi Tūheitia on Tuesday, by Sunday the spotlight was back on the as yet-to-be- revealed Treaty Principles Bill.
Act leader David Seymour’s tetchy and silly response to the open letter from 441 church leaders from various Christian denominations opposing the proposed Bill was unnecessary and will have done little for his cause.
By Monday, Mr Luxon, at his post-Cabinet media conference, was batting off a barrage of questions about the Bill. He portrayed the issue as merely what happens in a mixed member proportional government. It was all about compromise.
Act did not get everything it wanted, and nor did National.
Were those negotiating the deal for National naive or desperate for power at any cost?
Since National says it will not vote for the Bill past first reading, ensuring the Bill will fail, it seems farcical and against its mantra of not spending money on dumb stuff, for it to agree to the six-month select committee process sought by Act.
The select committee process is not expected to wind up until May next year.
We wonder how Mr Luxon will cope with ongoing pressure over this and how comfortable his caucus members may be when the controversy comes to a town near them.
They may have been quietly happy to look the other way during the sometimes-ugly ferment over Three Waters and co-governance because it could serve them well at last year’s election. However, now they have the baubles of power, they may have less enthusiasm for the possibility of taking the fallout from something a minor party foisted upon them.
The regulatory impact statement from the Ministry of Justice, released by Mr Seymour yesterday, said neither the proposed Bill nor the status quo sufficiently addressed the wider issue of significant differences of opinion about what the Treaty/te Tiriti means in our constitutional arrangements.
However, the status quo was preferable as it preserved the opportunity for the Crown and iwi and hapū to partner meaningfully in a forward-focused discussion about it.
The quality assurance panel reviewing the RIS found its analysis wanting. Given the constitutional significance of the proposal and the impacts on the Crown-Māori relationship it would expect it to be based on full consultation with iwi and hapū, constitutional experts and the broader public to understand their views and shape additional policy options. Quite.
The Bill is not expected to be considered by Cabinet for its approval until November 11 (ironically, Armistice Day).
Whether that might be an opportunity for National to flex its muscles, either to delay it, kill it or offer an alternative, remains to be seen.
