Mr O’Brien accepts Court poll ruling

Press, 8 November 1978, Page 3

Mr O’Brien accepts Court poll ruling

i pa Wellington i The member of Parliament; for Island Bay (Mr J. G.; j O’Brien) will not appeal! I against a Supreme Court [ruling that he cannot call i himself “Labour (Island Bay)” on the ballot paper. : The Court confirmed a ruling by the Island Baj' returning officer (Mr J. Stitfall) that to prevent confusion with the official Labour candidate (Mr F. D. O’Flynn), Mr O’Brien had to be described as “Independent Labour (Island Bay).” “We accept the decision,” i said Mr O’Brien yesterday. “I don’t think there is much i point in taking up the time ; of the courts with an ap- I peal.” ■

: But Mr O’Brien said his s posters and advertising [would continue to use the [term “Labour (Island Bay).” I “I am a Labour candidate. [The New Zealand Labour [Party has not got a patent [on the word ‘Labour’.” > At the Court hearing,

.'Messrs Stitfall and O’Flynn ’had said that under the iElectoral Act the decision as; [to designation on the ballot’ paper was not solely for the: candidate and that the returning officer had a discretion where such designation was capable of leading to confusion on the part of voters and that in the present case he had exercised it on proper principles. Mr O’Brien contended that he had no such discretion except where there might be confusion as to the same or similar surnames of candidates. His Honour said there was no doubt the returning officer's discretion extended beyond the question of surnames. Wherever confusion might arise the officer was given the power to resolve it, such powers being limited only by the things permitted to be shown on the ballot papers. But within those boundaries he was obliged to avoid confusion. It was plain that Mr!

O’Brien’s own designation ■ was capable of causing con[fusion. The word “Labour” ’had for a long time meant Jto *he electors of New Zea- - land an official representa- ■ five of the Labour Party. That was Mr O’Brien’s ; designation in 1975 and he now stood in a different ca- : pacity. The addition of the ■ words “Island Bay” did not remove the confusion. They : did no more’ than state the name of the electorate. Other matters included the ' presence in the electorate of persons with a restricted knowledge of English and the similarity of the sur- ; names of Messrs O’Brien and O’Flynn. It was clear, therefore, that there was a possibility of confusion and the returning officer had the power to resolve it. He had adopted the traditional course of simply adding the word “Independent,” which was not inappropriate as Mr O’Brien ) had used the same word in ‘describing his position.