contentious issue i know but id rather we had the discussion now than a creep towards something that doesnt serve anyone.
It is typical winston but if you put aside the hot air theres still an important issue at its core.
Mr Peters criticised plans to choose a Maori flag to be flown on special occasions as "insidious, creeping crawling dissolving of the bonds and the symbols that unite us as a nation" in his speech to the party's conference at the weekend.
"It is dangerous for the future of this nation to create another flag ... Thousands of New Zealanders have died under our flag and many were Maori."
Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples is consulting iwi on an official flag after Prime Minister John Key said he would support one chosen by Maori which would be flown from the bridge, Parliament and Premier House on Waitangi Day from 2010.
But Mr Peters asked: "Tell me who voted at the last election to set up a separate system for Maori? Tell me where is the mandate for [the] Maori Party to choose any national flag, let alone a Maori flag?"
Mr Peters called the Maori Party "separatists", and said the only area where they were prepared to tolerate a One Country concept was their fervent embrace of other taxpayers' dollars.
Adequately hidden thunder...
3 years ago
Edited 3 years ago
Can you highlight the important issue for me? Because (I imagine you agree), Maori having a flag that represents them really ain't a big deal and sure as hell ain't "separatism"!
The only thing in his article (in the SS Times which your link is referencing) which I thought was almost apt was his claim that the Maori party are made up of (paraphrasing here) professional Maoris as opposed to Maori professionals.
I have no issue with Maori representation at all but also sort of agree with John Key in his comment re: why only Auckland? Why not Wellington? Why not Hamilton?