At the time of the Maori Representation Act (1867), the right to vote rested on property qualification being restricted to males who owned property. Maori males owning ‘freehold' estates even jointly could vote on the General Roll – the problem was disputed, customary land ownership issues. The four Maori seats were a temporary measure for only five years then extended for another five years and ultimately the Maori Representation Continuance Act (1876) set Maori seats in concrete "until expressly repealed by …the General Assembly (Parliament)".

Interestingly enough Maori men (1867) got the vote 12 years before landless European men (1879). Universal suffrage in 1893 for all Kiwis removed any legitimate reason for separate Maori seats.

The Maori seats came about to give Maori parliamentary representation because many could not meet the property criteria – it benefited Maori, not disenfranchised them. Anyone who claims otherwise is spouting unmitigated claptrap.

One would have thought Kelvin Davis, Labour's Maori Affairs spokesperson, MP for Te Tai Tokerau (Maori seat), an ex-Kaitaia school principal would have had the nous to work all this out for himself rather than vigorously opposing Winston Peters' referendum proposal. To be fair, Mr Davis probably doesn't want concrete facts to demolish self-serving myths.

Winston Peters' stance on the Maori seats is correct and pandering to the Maori Party, separatists, vested part-Maori interests, Maori activists and other pseudo toadies has no place in New Zealand because it's race-based nonsense.

R Paterson, Mount Maunganui.