CONDUCT OF ELECTION

Wairarapa Times-Age, 2 October 1943, Page 3

CONDUCT OF ELECTION

INQUIRY NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY TO MR HOLLAND. PARTICULARS OF OUTSTANDING VOTES. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. 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 reply 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 he forwarded it to the chief electoral officer, Mr L. Irwin, for a report on the point raised by Mr Holland. Mr Fraser enclosed a copy of the report in his letter and said that if Mr Holland desired any further information the chief electoral officer would be glad to furnish it. On election night the fullest possible return of forces’ votes from New Zealand and overseas was announced, Mr Fraser 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 at follows: —Canada, 150; Middle East, 2000; Pacific, 6000; (including 2000 declaration votes); New Zealand, 12,000. Already 73,000 forces’ votes had been included in the preliminary count. Absentee, postal and seamen’s votes still to be counted were in the vicinity of 60,000. These were the outstanding civilian votes ELECTORAL OFFICER’S REPORT. The report of the chief electoral officer stated that it had been made clear in all announcements from the electoral office and also in the Press that Saturday night’s voting figures were a preliminary count only, as was the practice on the 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 bailor, Mi’ Irwin said that with regard to the figures quoted by Mr Holland, he 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 375 civilian votes and 431 soldiers’ votes. Actually, he obtained 763 civilian votes and 43 soldiers’ votes. The returning officer had recorded the correct figures, but one of the Dunedin 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 its being supplied by the respective parties.” Official results of the general election held a week ago are still in course of compilation, and till this work is completed the situation in several electorates where the issue is doubtful because of the small majorities of the leading candidates is unlikely to be clarified. Many people have been surprised at the unusually large numbers of absent and postal votes, which appear to range from about 600 to 1000 and even more for some electorates. A possible explanation for these phenomenal figures is that they are to a large extent accounted for by electors having been directed to essential work outside their home electorates, for which they were permitted to vote. ,