It is a fair point to make that the Maori term "tino rangatiratanga", symbolised in many minds by the familiar black, white and red flag with its koru design, means, as the distinguished Maori academic Mason Durie explained in his 2003 book Launching Maori Futures, Maori control of Maori resources.
But he also gave it another, more subtle meaning: Maori autonomy and self-determination, which is by no means one and the same concept.
It goes to the heart of Maori grievances about the wording of Treaty of Waitangi and what Maori claim is the ambiguity if not the actual deception between the surrender of sovereignty in the first article and the guarantee of rangatiratanga, therefore "sovereignty", in the second.
As a focus of Maori protest, the tino rangatiratanga flag could hardly carry more symbolic weight today among a majority of Maori, so the Cabinet's decision to permit it to be flown at significant sites controlled by the Government on Waitangi Day, February 6, next to the official New Zealand flag, will be read as much more than a gesture.
Quite what it does mean, however, will be different things to different people.
The Prime Minister, in his most cheerful, buoyant style, talked about the flag being the "Maori flag", which it cannot truly be for there is no universal agreement on such a thing, and that permitting it to be flown alongside the New Zealand flag would symbolise the progress of the Crown-Maori partnership.
A partnership in which one party promotes separatism hardly seems symbolic of anything but division, but Mr Key was also undoubtedly using the decision to further cement the relationship between the National Party and its new-found friend, the Maori Party.
After all, this matter began a year ago with a request from Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples to fly the tino rangatiratanga flag from the Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day.
Mr Key was happy to permit it, providing Maori could agree on a flag and its meaning.
There followed consultation and hui, with 80% agreeing to the flag as representing the preferred Maori flag.
It is the nature of things that it will become the "official" Maori flag.
That means it will be flown alongside the New Zealand flag from official buildings on Waitangi Day, including, for example, Parliament and Premier House, as well as the harbour bridge and at Government House in Auckland and Wellington, but not - it seems - at Waitangi.
This is because Te Tii Marae is Ngapuhi territory and tribal elders appear to believe the correct flag to represent Maoridom is the flag of the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand.
The Waitangi National Trust Board will consider the matter next month and it poses a difficult problem for members: the protest movement has always sought and always been denied official permission to fly the flag at Waitangi; and Ngapuhi's well-founded historical objections will have to be overcome.
These sensitivities aside, the prospects of the Maori flag becoming an entrenched symbol of New Zealand has to be considered to be improved following the Cabinet's ruling.
Mr Key wants it to become "a symbol of the bicultural foundations"; it is bound to acquire over time stronger constitutional symbolism by being flown from official sites, especially Parliament; and it is certain to be part of the constitutional review to be held next year by agreement between the National Party and the Maori Party as part of their confidence and supply agreement.
What then for "tino rangatiratanga"? The low-key debate about a new New Zealand flag, which is part of the general constitutional debate, will inevitably tend to give the Maori flag a greater emphasis, much more than as a mere salve to the Maori Party.
With race relations regarded in opinion polling at least as one of the biggest issues facing the country, Mr Key and his Cabinet's decision might, in time, be viewed as he wants it to be: a positive, unifying outcome.
But, equally, it could trigger more dissension and divisiveness among Maori and other New Zealanders, especially but not exclusively National Party supporters.
The Court of Appeal's 1987 judgement establishing "partnership" might be thought by Mr Key and others now as justifying a two-flag policy, but that does not mean it is acceptable to the majority of New Zealanders - who, after all, were not asked for their opinion.
It is to be wondered just how much thought the Government gave to the decision and its possible consequences, especially to the offence it will give to New Zealanders content with the symbolism and meaning of the official flag, but outraged by the thought of a Maori political symbol being permitted to fly beside it.
