BOLD CHALLENGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 291, 8 December 1937, Page 16

BOLD CHALLENGE.

ELECTION EXPENSES.

FEDERAL LIMIT EXCEEOED.

A «CRUCIFIED" CANDIDATE.

(Prom Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, December 2,

Mr. Josoph Hamlet was a candidate for the Warringah seat at the recent Federal election. He is well known in Sydney as an argumentative and disputatious public man, an<l his speeches and his numerous letter* to newspapers are marked by a good deal of energy, and frequently by much vituperative power. However, he was beaten at Warringah— ho stood as an Independent U.A.P. candidate —and as lie thinks that he has been badly treated —"crucified,'' he calls it — lie proposes to "take it out of his rivals and members of Parliament in general in rather an ingenious way. i All candidates are, I>y law, caiied upon to sign a declaration after #he result of the poll ha* been announced to the effect that the sum of .£IOO would cover the whole of their election expenses. Mr. Hamlet has announced through all the newspapers that he has spent a great deal more than £100, and that lie will not sign the statutory declaration— though refusal may, mean a penalty of £.">0 —and he challenges the authorities to prosecute him for breaking the law. Candidate's Own Estimate £2300. Mr. Hamlet's point, of course, is that the total outlay incurred by most candidates for either State or Federal seats, goes far beyond the £100 limit. Mr. Hamlet himself says that he spent a great deal more than £100 during the 11 weeks for which his campaign ran. He had. 13 different organisations going rin . different parts of the electorate, and for some time his outgoings ran as high a* £280 per week. Each of the«y stations required a staff, and in addition canvassers had to l>e employed. There were at least 2-~> of these, the women receiving £2 10/ per week and ex|>eiises, and the men £4 a week and expenses.

"Sometimes."' says !Xlr. Hamlet, in a statement to "Smith's Weekly," "there were meals to be paid for, and on elec- | tion day I met all the meal charges, which were colossal." There was not a week in the campaign which failed to cost Mr. Hamlet at least £l-"> 0, and his 1 own estimate of his expenditure for the campaign is £2300. But Mr. Hamlet asserts further that he is by no means the worst offender in this resjx'ct against the statute. He declares that at least £0000 was spent on one seat at the Federal elections, and there were other candidates not far behind. To'him the statutory limitation and the declaration signed by candidates are simply farcical. "Extravagantly Dishonest." "The whole system," he states, "is so flagrantly dishonest that it smells to heaven, and the sooner the people in our democracy awaken to this fact the better." Therefore Mr. Hamlet defies the authorities or the members of Parliament collectively or individually to prosecute him so to give him a chance to bring out facts in Court for the edification of the general public. There is no doubt about the wording of the Electoral Act in this connection. Clause''l4s reads: "No electoral expense shall be incurred or authorised by a candidate in respect of any candidature in a House of Representatives election in excess of £100."

The Act then goes on to recite the different purposes on which a candidate may spend money—printing, advertising and publishing, stationery, postage, telegrams, committee rooms, public meeting halls, and scrutineers.

The candidates and politicians who have thought it worth their while to argue the point with Mr. Hamlet lave suggested that the law, after specifying the £100 limit, indicates that this sum may legitimately be spent on each one of "the items normally encountered during an election"—and the total expenses might thus easily run into thousands. Moreover, there is the question to be considered whether a candidate representing a party may not quite legitimately obtain assistance from the party funds.

The organising secretary of the United Country party, on being consulted by the "Sydney Morning Herald" on the points raised by Mr. Hamlet, maintained that there is practically no legal limit to the help that can thus be secured. The limit for personal expenditure is certainly £100, but it always seems to have been understood that "party funds" are not covered by the Act.

This, of course, may account for the reiterated assurance of many nicinlers of Parliament, both State and Commonwealth, 'that they have not e.vnended more than £100 in their various candidatures, and it also accounts for the!r willingness to sign the statutory declaration to that effect. But, of course, Mr. Hamlet, being an Independent condidate, got no help from the party funds which may, in turn, account for his inability to understand how an election cab be run on £100, and his rather ferocious hostility toward successful rivals.