Electoral Bill For Second Reading

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31113, 16 July 1966, Page 3

Electoral Bill For Second Reading

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 15. The Government today defeated an Opposition amendment that the Electoral Amendment Bill—which gives servicemen under 21 in danger areas the right to vote —should be referred back to the Statutes Revision Committee.

The Government won the first two divisions of the current session—the first by 41 votes to 30 on the Opposition’s amendment and the second by 40 votes to 30 on the proposal by the chairman of the committee, Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont) that the bill proceed.

Mr Sheat said the bill would bring New Zealand into line with Australia where similar legislation, with the support of the Labour Party, had been passed.

Mr N. V. Douglas (Opp., Auckland Central) said it was unfortunate the Government was determined the bill would not be discussed on a rational plane. It was quite apparent the Government was trying to make an emotional situation so it could “cash in” on it. “The Government says 20-year-olds in this country are not entitled to vote and will not get a vote. They will call them up into the Army, they will send them overseas to fight for our property; and only at that point will they get a vote.” A Government voice: Who’s getting emotional now? Mr Douglas asked Mr Sheat if the Australian legislation had not been a prelude to conscription. Only a year after the Australian legislation was brought in, conscription had been introduced. Mr Douglas said the Labour Party was not denying a soldier a vote. Labour proposed that everybody should get a vote whether they were overseas or not. “We are accusing the Government of trying to divide our young people.” “Unusual Position” The Under-Secretary of Finance (Mr Muldoon) said conscription was not a part of the issue. He accused the Labour Party of showing its “traditional anti-soldier attitude.” At present there were 213 persons under 21 serving overseas. They were not all in danger zones. “The considered opinion of the Returned Services’ Association is far more important than the voice of a group of illiterate training college students,” he said. Mr Muldoon described it as a “rather unusual position” that although this was a Government bill, the Labour Party had the last word. The responsibility for denying the vote to servicemen risking their lives overseas rested with the Labour Party. “It is the Labour Party that has the final word.”

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said the Opposition’s purpose in calling for the bill to be referred back to the committee was to make it possible for all young persons of 20 to have the vote.

“This would mean all servicemen would have the vote,” he said. “What is wrong with 20-year-olds having the vote?” Querying Mr Muldoon’s statement that 213 servicemen overseas were under 21, Mr Kirk asked if they were official figures. “Yesterday, the Minister of Defence denied us these figures, and today I am told members of the committee had the figures —but no Labour member on the committee had the figures.” Vote For All The Opposition wanted all servicemen to have the vote, said Mr Kirk. “We do not believe persons under 20 should be sent overseas into danger areas on active service,” said Mr Kirk. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake): These boys would resist it I assure you. Sir Leslie Munro (Govt., Waipa) said the Opposition was “trying to get off the hook." The Opposition was “wantonly and irresponsibly” trying to stall the bill. “They have made this decision because it is one of the very few occasions when the Opposition has the power to prevent it.” Referring to the Opposition’s claim that war had not been officially declared in Vietnam, Sir Leslie Munro said: “We have heard this stupid statement. But ever since the end of the last world war there have been no declarations of war in conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam.” “Election Trick” Mr R. L. Bailey (Opp., Heretaunga) said the bill was discriminatory legislation which th > Government had introduced as an election trick. What the Government was saying was that if a young man volunteered to go to Vietnam he would be entitled to vote in the election—but if he did not go he would not get a vote. "This is discriminating legislation if ever there was. It discriminates soldier against soldier.” The Attorney General (Mr Hanan) supported an amendment to the bill, made in committee, on the determination of danger zones. The Gover-nor-General would act on the recommendation of the Min-

ister of Justice, given with the concurrence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Hanan said the Government was confident that any Leader of the Opposition would perform his task with responsibility. That was why the Government had no hesitation in giving the Leader of the Opposition the power of veto. That disposed of the argument that Government had all the power. Mr Hanan said the R.S.A. had said the right to vote should not be confined to those serving at the time of an election in a designated danger zone. Such a provision was contained in the Australian legislation, so the committee had altered the bill. Permanent Mr Hanan said Mr Kirk had “waved his arms about and became melodramatic” about the man who came back and could not vote. But under the amendment, once a man was eligible to vote he would remain eligible. Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill) said Mr Hanan had confessed to the House that it was imperfect legislation. The Minister of Defence (Mr Eyre) accused the Opposition of “playing politics at the expense of the soldier.” Mr W. A, Fox (Opp., Miramar) said Mr Eyre’s remarks were nonsensical. “We could easily say the Government introduced the bill for political reasons,” said Mr Fox. “I speak for most of this side of the House when I say I would not send any young man into danger when he has not lived a fraction of his life.”