W. Hutt is ‘Justice Dept. case’—Labour

Press, 17 January 1979, Page 7

W. Hutt is ‘Justice Dept. case’—Labour

PA Wellington The Labour Party may give serious consideration to adopting an attitude of “no case to answer" if the National Party lodges an electoral petition against the General Election result in the Western Hutt constituency. Instead, Labour may argue that it is up to the Justice Department to answer charges of voting irregularities brought by National, such as dual registrations. The Labour view would b. that the charges boiled down to a claim that the electoral rolls were poorly compiled, and therefore the Justice Department should provide the answers in court. Suggestions that Labour could take this attitude and thereby save itself thousands of dollars in legal costs associated in preparing a complex case — were made by Mr J. Cuttance, a lawyer and the manager for Mr J. J. Terris’s successful campaign in Western Hutt.

Mr Cuttance said that people thought that if National lodged a $20,J00 electoral petition in Western Hutt, Labour would be forced into taking similar action.

“But we would not necessarily have to prepare a defence in Western Hutt. I

think we would have to file a counter-petition, just to make sure that we did not close any doors on ourselves.

“But we would look closely at the possibilities of leaving the Justice Department to defend it. After all, what the National Party is complaining about is the irregularities in the rolls. “It is all rather ironic. Here is the National Party, going to have to spend time and money challenging an electoral system it said was working fine before the election.

“It has done an aboutface because it has been smitten by its inefficiency,” Mr Cuttance said.

He emphasised that he was commenting only on the Western Hutt situation. Labour would have to decide on its attitudes in the other possibly contentious seats of Hunua and Hastings, depending on local circumstances. But the situation would be totally different in Kapiti, where Labour would be trying to win the seat back through an electoral petition to the Supreme Court. There, Labour would be “going all out” to prove that irregularities took place, and would be challenging magisterial rulings

on the validity of certain votes. It would be the National Party which would be in the role of “defending” a winning candidate.

It appears that Mr Cuttance’s argument could be valid, if Labour decided to put its “no case to answer” theory to test.

A 1975 amendment to the Electoral Act, 1957, says that in an electoral petition, the respondents can be the successful candidate, the returning officer, or electorate officer.

The returning and electorate officers are officials of the Justice Department. The Chief Electoral Officer (Mr J. L. Wright) said he had no comment to make on the legal position of his department until such time as a petition was lodged. It is already certain that the electoral system will come under close scrutiny this year, both in the court and in Parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) announced last month that he would set up a committee of inquiry to decide whether the system was efficient, and to make recommendations for its change. The committee will comprise a leading magistrate, a computer expert, and a retired public servant.