THE PRESS THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1978. Penalties on candidates

Press, 9 March 1978, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1978. Penalties on candidates

When the counting of votes in the Rangitikei by-election was complete the Labour Party candidate. Mr J. J. Stewart, had 1614 votes. Another 87 votes would have enabled Mr Stewart to recover the $lOO deposit that all candidates must put up when entering a Parliamentary election. He needed to win at least a quarter of the number of votes won by the successful candidate. That has been the rule for more than 70 years.

Until 1905 any candidate who polled a tenth of the number of votes received by a successful candidate recovered his £lO deposit. In that year Parliament changed the proportion to a fourth of the successful candidate’s votes. So the electoral taw has remained through major revisions and consolidations in 1927 and 1956 Three years ago the 320 deposit was raised to 3100, but the forfeiture rule stayed the same and many a deposit goes to the Consolidated Revenue Account.

Were the deposit to have been adjusted in accordance with changes in the value of money the £lO deposit at the turn of the century would now be about 3250 Apart from other election costs, the SlOO fee is sufficient to deter most frivolous thoughts of entering an election, though the loss of this, or more, would not dissuade determined

eccentrics or pranksters. Yet the terms set for deposits should not impose a penalty on conscientious candidates who muster respectable support. At the last General Election many candidates for the minor parties scored between 1000 and 2000 votes: a few won more. In most electorates even 2000 votes were not sufficient to earn the return of a candidate’s deposit. Several candidates who received more than one vote in 10 lost their denosits Their performances could hardly be rated as frivolous or as an intrusion into an election unw r orthy of respect. The time has come for a revision of the terms for recovering even a nominal deposit Modest successes among minor parties’ candidates should be recognised by the electoral law. Perhaps the measure of success should no longer be the vote of the winning candidate: the number of valid votes cast might provide a fairer yardstick The present rule is severe when the successful candidate scores a very high vote, and less onerous when the winner’s vote is relatively low. Whichever yardstick is chosen (the total vote or the winning candidate’s vote) a tenth of the votes rather than a quarter would be a fairer test of a minor candidate’s right to have his deposit returned.