Mr Key had prefaced his offer with a plea to the iwi to put aside its differences - a reference to the two factions that seem no nearer than ever they were to agreeing on how negotiations should progress - so settlement could be achieved. The Crown was ready to negotiate with whoever the iwi chose to represent it, he said.
Far from being unprecedented, it is not at all unusual for politicians to express that sort of view at Waitangi, and for good reason. February 6 represents a chance for them to speak to a much larger audience than iwi leadership, and few outside Ngapihi would be concerned by an expressed desire to get the process over and done with.
It is just as reasonable for Ngapuhi to shun haste in favour of achieving the best settlement it possibly can. And while the government might want to get on with it, it is imperative that Ngapuhi resolves its internal issues first. If that does not happen, settlement, effectively via one faction, is unlikely to be lasting, at least in terms of the tribe accepting that the process has been completed.
The process is a difficult one for iwi, and Ngapuhi is no different from any other, in that no settlement to date has come close to delivering what claimants have initially sought. That is unlikely to change. It is generally accepted that those iwi that have settled have received recompense of around 3 per cent of what was allegedly lost in terms of monetary value, although these claims are about much more than that.
The apology delivered by the Crown to Ngati Kuri last week detailed a good deal of tangible loss in terms of land, but the tribe was rightly aggrieved not only by that loss, and its calamitous repercussions. Fundamentally claims have always come back to the loss of land, and will continue to do so, but it has to be appreciated how such loss has impacted on iwi culturally and emotionally. Ngati Kuri would not be alone in claiming that the loss of its lands had resulted in a decline in the use of te reo by tribal descendants, that being perhaps the most fundamental expression of identity, and had limited its ability to meet its obligations in terms of manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga.
Can money make up for that? Not retrospectively, but the Crown, which represents all of us, can make some recompense, not only as an acknowledgement of and compensation for past injustices, but as a means of repairing damage done for future generations.
That should not be confused with justice, however. The point has been made again and again at the signing of deeds of settlement with the Crown that iwi have not received all that they sought, or believed they were entitled to, but had settled for what was practically achievable. That was undoubtedly the case for Ngati Kuri, and will just as certainly be the case for Ngapuhi. The alternative, to go on and on into the future without ever achieving agreement, would not serve the best interests of either party.
That's not to say that everyone will be happy with what has been accepted as realistically achievable, however. Certainly Ngati Kuri's acceptance of the settlement negotiated with the Crown did not sit well with some of its people, but that wasn't unusual either. What should be accepted is that those who negotiated on behalf of the iwi did so with skill, passion and determination to achieve the best possible outcome. It was inevitable that some iwi members would be disappointed, but now, for Ngati Kuri, is the time for unity in making the best of the new reality. The settlement of grievances represented a once-only opportunity to forge a new future, and if that opportunity is not taken then the future will be bleak.
Meanwhile the real New Zealand was on display at Waitangi on February 6. Unlike the day before, it was devoted to families, while the politicians and protesters took a back seat. And wet and windy as it was, it provided an encouraging insight into how well New Zealanders of all origins enjoy the company of each other.
But even the events of the previous day showed how we are evolving. February 6 at Waitangi was once stultifyingly formal, when the sight of a portly Caucasian Prime Minister clutching the hand of a small Maori boy as he made his way on to the Treaty Grounds was seen as evidence that all was well with race relations in New Zealand.
Then there were the years of passionate protest that could hardly be ignored by its targets but appalled many, often accompanied by threatened or actual violence, albeit of a type that would hardly count as such in most countries. Now those protests have mellowed, and are perhaps more effective because of that.
Opposition to oil drilling and mining was the major source of protest last week, issues that are by no means the preserve of a minority of Maori, the majority of those who expressed opposition doing so with a degree of dignity and rationality that has not always been a hallmark of Waitangi Day.
There is good cause to hope that the process of settling treaty claims will begin a new era in this country - certainly settlement with any iwi, big or small, is good news on every measurable front for their communities - but it is February 6 at Waitangi that shows how far we have come in a relatively short time, and that the rifts the media work so hard to exploit don't run especially deep. William Hobson's declaration 174 years ago, 'He iwi tahi tatou,' might have been premature, but it's coming.
