Those who question ''affirmative'' action for Maori are too readily labelled racist, ignorant or redneck.
Similarly, those who advocate such measures are also hit with the racist tag.
Such discussions, however, are important.
As was clear in the mountain of submissions to last year's constitutional review, there is much concern about these issues from many quarters.
At the outset it should be acknowledged that, for whatever reasons, unemployment levels, imprisonment rates and a host of other social indicators show significantly more problems among New Zealanders identified of Maori descent than for the rest of society.
This is a huge issue for New Zealand. And although most of this can be explained by ''class'' analysis - although begging the question of why Maori are so heavily represented in lower socio-economic groups - it seems there may be other elements to Maori social woes.
A fundamental difficulty, given 200-plus years of mixing, is deciding who is ''Maori''.
Does it depend only on a known and established genealogical link?
How strong does that connection have to be?
How much does the retention of culture (however that is defined) matter?
Is self-identification the key?
Such questions touch on a few of the reasons behind uneasiness of some about separating Maori and non-Maori.
At a time when threats from tribalism and ethnic conflicts are growing and where lack of integration and contact between communities is lamented in the West, New Zealand sometimes seem to do its best to foster an ''us-and-them'' approach.
This is a long-term recipe for division.
The latest such step is New Plymouth's decision to create the first separate district council Maori ward (Waikato and Bay of Plenty regional councils already having Maori wards).
After proposals to create Maori wards faltered in 2011, New Plymouth last week voted seven to six to push ahead for a Maori ward for local government elections in 2016.
It is true there are generally few ''Maori'' on district councils, and that is not ideal. Similarly, young are grossly under-represented - as are Pasifika, Asians, the poor and women.
Practicalities and common sense prevent juggling wards to deal with such issues, although single transferable voting can provide a modicum of assistance to minority groups or less populated geographic areas in multi-member wards.
Consider the biggest issues faced in recent years in Dunedin, for example, where concerns are spread across all citizens, whatever their racial background.
Debt, the stadium, cycleways and so on are hardly matters demanding a Maori perspective.
Our interests in common on district council matters far outweigh any ethnic differences.
The argument Maori should have their own ward(s) - or separate seats in an MMP parliament for that matter - also falls down on ''tangata whenua'' arguments.
We should not accept in a true democracy that those here first have separate or additional rights than more recent arrivals.
On that basis, descendants of the 1848 Scottish settlers in Dunedin could feel aggrieved they have no more rights than a Syrian refugee who has recently settled in the city and made it home.
Further, would a specified Maori ward councillor in essence represent local iwi, or all those with Maori ancestry - even if they had come south from Te Kuiti?
Are the wards an acknowledgement of historic grievances and the Treaty of Waitangi, because of Maori social disadvantage or to provide a Maori outlook?
Would it, almost inevitably, be snared by establishment Maori?
Nelson plans in 2011 for separate Maori representation were thrown out comprehensively in a referendum.
New Plymouth shied away from a similar poll, knowing the result would be the same.
As political interests, the public service and Maori interests continue to coalesce to push on with more ''separatism'' and special treatment, are they willing to call all those who are perturbed ignorant or racist? Were the majority in Nelson and the likely majority in New Plymouth wrong?
Or do those in places of influence know better?
