Leave To Campaign

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31118, 22 July 1966, Page 10

Leave To Campaign

Any candidate for election to Parliament deserves a fair opportunity to make himself and his platform known to electors. In recent elections voters have become less and less inclined to meet candidates, or even to hear them. The candidates, however, quite rightly continue to present themselves as often and for as long as possible to be cross-examined as well as listened to in public. Wise candidates begin their run long before an election campaign is formally opened. Members of Parliament who seek re-election gain an advantage from the prominence they win in the House of Representatives; and their position in their electorates ensures that they meet many citizens on public occasions. At the same time, they have little opportunity during the parliamentary session to canvass the electors more intimately. Here is where their rivals outside the House can score—even when they cannot devote all their time to the task. Members usually concentrate on their campaign only for three or four weeks before a General Election. The Electoral Act provides that a public servant standing for Parliament shall be given leave from his duties not later than the day on which nominations close. This day must be not less than 20 nor more than 27 days before the election. The rule set for the Public Service seems to be a fair example for other employers. The period for full-time campaigning is then about the same for all candidates. A self-employed person might allow himself longer, although he will not have the benefit of the party manifestos which are announced when the campaign formally begins. A Government Minister whose duties continue throughout the campaign probably has less time than most, and his services are sought on a broader front than that of his own constituency.

The disagreement this week at the meeting of the Marlborough Hospital Board over the leave granted to its deputy-superintendent (Mr G. A. Wall) was unfortunate, especially so because Mr Wall suggested that, for political reasons, the board had been less than generous. Regardless of the party Mr Wall will be supporting, the board must be as fair as it can in combining the interests of the hospital, the right of a candidate to campaign adequately, and the expectations of the electorate to meet him. Mr Wall will have leave for at least 26 days’ full-time campaigning, and perhaps longer. This, surely, is as long as most employees would expect. Mr Wall’s opportunities to initiate his campaign before then may be less than those of other candidates. The board might have considered trying to secure Mr Wall’s “ spare ” time against undue demands for his attendance at the hospital. It might well have accepted Mr Wall’s motion to review the decision, at least so as to remove the thought that an issue other than the efficiency of hospital administration determined the length of his leave. That is the serious side of this incident.