MAGISTERIAL RECOUNTS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 220, 6 December 1927, Page 18

MAGISTERIAL RECOUNTS

QUESTION OF CANDIDATES' COSTS RAISED “PAYING FOR ANOTHER’S ERROR” (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Monday. The responsibility of candidates at general elections for charges and costs consequent upon recounts of votes occupied some of Parliament’s time in the dying hours of the session to-day, when the Appropriation Bill was under consideration. It is probable that more will be heard of the question next sesion. THE question was raised by Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central), who said that there was a unanimous feeling that these charges should fall on the Consolidated Fund. He urged that provision should be made for the charges in connection with the petitions in the Lyttelton and Westland electorates in the last election, and for furture eventualities. FORCED TO PAY

Mr. J. McCombs, member for Lyttelton, who petitioned for a recount after Mr. M. E. Lyons had been declared elected, said that when his allegations were supported in certain particulars, the Magistrate searched the Statutes to find out if he could give costs against the Crown, and found that he had no authority to do so. He could hardly give costs against Mr. Lyons, who had, at the moment, won, though Mr. McCombs’s petition had, in certain respects, been sustained. “The Magistrate had to give costs against somebody,” said Mr. McCombs, “so he decided against me. Later the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate was wrong, but there was no power to cause him to alter his decision and give costs against my opponent, and so I had to pay. Take the position of my opponent; he was declared elected by the Returning Officer and by a Magisterial recount, and whether he willed it or not he had to face an action which invovied a of £ 300 or £ 400 —through no fault or his or mine, but because of a series of faults of Government officers.” Mr. T. E. Y. Seddon, member for Westland, who had also had a recount at last' election, with Mr. J. O'Brien, said that if the Government did not make such a provision as had been suggested, it would make it possible for injustices to occur in the future. The election took place in November, and it was four months before finality was arrived at in his case. Fifty witnesses on either side had to be called, which gave an idea of the amount of work and expenditure involved. Both he and Mr. O’Brien were forced into the position by their political parties, and had to go through the whole mill.' Win or lose, they were going to be heavy losers as far as the election was concerned. “My opponent is in a much worse position financially,” said Mr. Seddon, and he should be considered by the Government. His expenses amounted to about £150.” JUSTICE IN ARGUMENTS The Minister in charge of the Electoral Department (Hon A. D. McLeod) said that the Government recognised that there was at least a degree of justice in the arguments put forward—and perhaps a substantial degree. The > Government was considering amending

the law, and to that end information had been sought as to the general legislation, if any, which existed in other democratic countries. “Up to the present,” said Mr. McLeod, “I have not had any information on that point that would be of value. The Government agrees with the members who have stated that a responsibility, which it is impossible to evade, has been thrown on certain members of Parliament and candidates for election. All I can do is to promise htat iti will be gone into —not from the point of view of these cases alone, but from the point of of general legisla- ~ - ——