Canvassing

Press, 19 October 1978, Page 12

Canvassing

Sir, — J. R. Gregory is both right and wrong — right wing in his politics and wrong in what he says in his letter. While the submission of a second enrolment application may cause extra work for the Electoral Office, this is in the interests of both that office and the voter. The Electoral Office encourages this, and those of us with our eyes open will have seen the television advertising to this effect. Furthermore, I recently personally submitted 648 enrolment applications collected in one week by Labour canvassers in Lyttelton, and was later informed by the Electorate Office that only 133 of these were duplications. The ratio of duplications is therefore only one out of five. Anybody using Labour’s services stands a good chance of being able to vote, a somewhat better chance than if they followed Mr Gregory’s advice — typical of National’s do-nothing attitude on just about every aspect of Government responsibility. — Yours, etc., D. J. O’ROURKE. October 18, 1978.

Sir, — J. R. Gregory is either inexperienced in electoral matters or is himself trying to bend the facts. The important point is not what a voter is entitled to do but what he will be able to do on polling day. Only those whose names actually appear on a roll will get an ordinary vote, notwithstanding that under Section 99 (d) of the Electoral Act anybody who has applied for enrolment is also entitled to an ordinary vote. The difficulty with Section 99 (d) is: how does the Returning Officer know whether a voter has applied for enrolment if his name is somehow not on the roll? The last Labour Government remedied this with the enactment of Section 99 (f), now stupidly repealed by. National. The Labour party is therefore keeping courtstandard evidence of enrolment applications filed. Labour does not need to bend the facts. They speak for themselves. — Yours, S. YOUNG. October 18, 1978-