SOLDIERS' VOTES

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 164, 13 July 1945, Page 7

SOLDIERS' VOTES

MIDDLE EAST BALLOT

JUDICIAL INQUIRY ASKED By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter. WELLINGTON, this day. . "I want to speak about the inactivity of the Government in regard to the inquiry held concerning soldiers' votes in the Middle East," said Mr. W. S. Gocsman (Nat, Waikato) in his Address-in-Reply speech in the House of Representatives last night.

The Prime Minister had said that those at fault would be dealt with under the Public Service Act, he said. That was six months ago, and nothing had been done.

Mr. Goosman asked whether it was the intention of the Government to do anything, or was it intended to hide behind the findings of a "loaded" committee. The committee that inquired into the matter was composed of six Government members and four members of the Opposition. The latter voted to a man against the findings ml the committee. The inquiry bad revealed the gravest scandal, in respect to the Electoral Department and had shaken public confidence in that office. It was the bounded duty of the Government to take steps to clear the Department of suspicion and re-establish public confidence in it. The only way to do that was to hold a proper judicial inquiry.

The Minister of Health, Mr. Nordmeyer, said that the soldiers' voting in every theatre where voting was conducted ran strongly in the favour of the Government. Had the voting of servicemen in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the Pacific and Canada been against the Government and the voting in the Middle East for the Government, there would have been room for suspicion. It was expressly laid down in the regulations —to which no one then objected— that there was no need for a recount in the soldiers' votes. In'only one electorate (Eden) would the result of the Middle East voting have had any effect. Admittedly the conduct of certain officers had been indiscreet, but last year, when the whole matter was thrashed out, no responsible member of the Opposition suggested that the Government, as a Government, had been responsible in any way for what had occurred. Now, however, it was suggested that the Government had been guilty of collusion—a conclusion that was not justified by any evidence before the committee. - •