SERVICEMEN’S VOTES Opposition Sees Flaws In Bill

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31083, 11 June 1966, Page 3

SERVICEMEN’S VOTES Opposition Sees Flaws In Bill

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 10. Servicemen under 21 will get the right to vote if they are engaged in a “specially-defined danger zone overseas” under a bill introduced in Parliament today. The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) said the measure, the Electoral Amendment Bill, would define special areas where there was an imminent threat of war or danger to life.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) claimed the bill meant the Government would be able to decide which servicemen should vote. “Why not extend the privilege generally?”

Mr Kirk said other servicemen serving overseas would not be able to vote because they were not in an area where hostilities were imminent.

“It seems wrong to me that the Government can decide which servicemen shall vote and it is objectionable that the Government can pick and ’thoose,” said Mr Kirk. Mr Hanan said he did not reject Mr Kirk’s arguments completely, but whichever way the problem was tackled, there would be anomalies. Mr Kirk was “going a bit far” in suggesting that the Govern-

ment would define the special voting areas. “The areas will be defined after consultation with the Ministry of Defence and declared by Order-in-Council,” he said.

Mr Hanan said it was arguable whether all servicemen overseas should be given the right to vote —or only those involved in actual risk. “These young people in a danger zone might lose their lives and we acknowledge their right to vote.” “If there is a real danger in a danger zone—but no possibility of danger at the time

of an election—we do not envisage they will get a vote then.”

To Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere), who raised the difficulties of applying the bill, Mr Hanan said the Lili would first be prepared by the Statutes Revision Committee.

Mr R. J. Tizard (Opp., Pakuranga) said the bill had the effect of confining the vote to a limited sector of the population when others of the same age group might be equally, or better, qualified to make the decision.

Mr Hanan said the hill put the emphasis on the man who was facing real danger. “When I was a front-line soldier, I always felt I deserved twice the pay of anybody—no matter what rank he was—who was safe back at home,” he said. Mr Kirk said the Opposition was keen for the bill to go to the Statutes Revision Committee as the more it was explained, the more complicated the issues appeared. The right to vote was a basic right, and not be to conferred at the discretion of the Government when it depended on a matter of miles or the incidence of danger. Mr Hanan said Mr Kirk had overlooked the fact that the Labour Government had brought down the rehabilitation benefit, which the National Government administered, and added the benefit was felt to be one of the best in the world. This benefit was clearly defined in its application to those who qualified by the incidence of danger. The bill was read a second time pro forma and referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.