CONDUCT OF ELECTION

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 6, 2 October 1943, Page 6

CONDUCT OF ELECTION

Committee Of Inquiry Not Felt Necessary MR. FRASER’S REPLY TO MR. HOLLAND The opinion that nothing that had been brought to his notice would justify the appointment of a committee of inquiry to investigate the conduct of the general election, as had been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, was expressed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, in a replv sent to Mr. Holland. The Prime Minister said that the Electoral Act made ample provision for dealing with any irregularities which might possibly be suspected, and he thought it was'much preferable that the usual course should be adopted if any person or persons thought there was reasonable ground for taking action. The Prime Minister also stated that immediately ■on receipt of Mr Holland’s letter lie forwarded it to the clint electoral officer. Mr. L. , lr ' vin : r . f ttJ report on the points raised by Mi. Holland Mr. Fraser enclosed a copy pt the report in bis letter and said that it Mr. Holland desired any further information the chief electoral officer would Ou glad to furnish it. , , „ r -i,, On election night the fullest possible return of forces’ votes from New Zealand and overseas was announced, Mr. I’raser said. For security reasons, the strength of the votes of servicemen overseas was not disclosed, but a single grouped total was given. Actually the majority of the overseas votes was given on Saturday night. The outstanding returns of forces votes were estimated as follows: Canada, 150; Middle East, 2000; Pacific, 6000 (including 2000 declaration votes) , New Zealand, 12,000. Already 1 3,000 forces’ votes had been included in the preliminary count. Absentee, postal amt seamen’s votes still to be counted were in the vicinity of .60,000. These were the outstanding civilian votes. The report of the chief electoral oflicei stated that it had been made clear iu al announcements from the electoral ofhcand also in the Press that Saturday night’s voting figures were a preliminary count only, as was the practice on t.ic evening of polling day. The figures included all those to hand at the time they were announced. Quite apart from the votes of the forces, the civilian figures also were from a preliminary count. To avoid confusion it was necessary to withhold the announcement of the forces’ figures till the civilian figures were available. Announcing them earlier might have led to returning officers, including them inadvertently in the civilian final figures, and absence of special reference to that might have led. to inclusion a second time. All returning officers were instructed that a telegram advising forces’ voting figures would be sent to them after the dispatch of their final telegrams giving the civilian voting figures. After giving details of the precautions taken to ensure secrecy of the service ballot, Mr. Irwin said that with regard to the figures quoted by Mr. Holland, lie had ascertained that they were in respect of the Dunedin North electorate. An incorrect figure had been used, the Independent candidate (No. 3) having been credited with obtaining 37a civilian votes and 431 soliders’ votes. Actually, he obtained 763 civilian votes and 43 soldiers’ votes. The returning officer had recorded the correct figures, but one of the Dune,din papers had recorded the incorrect figures as quoted by Mr. Holland. , “As to the distribution to servicemen of policy material,” Mr. Irwin’s report concluded, “this was cabled overseas and printed there within a week of itsmeing supplied by the respective parties.”

In his letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Holland suggested that, the committee of inquiry should consist of represeuthtives of the main interests contesting the election. He raised several questions concerning voting by servicemen, and in the course of his letter said : “During the past two days I have received, many communications from all parts of New Zealand regarding the result. of the election, and many of these inquire about votes cast by servicemen. There has been considerable confusion due to the results being announced, only to be materially altered by subsequent announcements of servicemen’s votes. “I have received cabled advice that n>> policy material was received by certain Middle East servicemen up to a few days before the election. Many inquiries have been received whether proper precautions were taken to ensure strict secrecy in the voting by servicemen and whether facilities were offered to permit the presence of scrutineers and also whether adequate precautions were taken to ensure that only servicemen entitled to vote did vote. In one case a candidate actually received 56 more votes from servicemen out of a total of 1600 servicemen’s votes cast than he received out of a total of 12,000 civilian, votes recorded.”