Woman’s daughter and son’s votes challenged

Press, 4 June 1988, Page 8

Woman’s daughter and son’s votes challenged

PA -v Masterton A woman said not to have lived permanently in Wairarapa since she was five was among those whose votes were challenged during the Electoral Petition hearing in Masterton yesterday.

Mrs. Elizabeth Evans, of Hastings, gave evidence that her daughter, Lynn Ann Bowering, spent most of her time climbing mountains in places like South America. When in New, Zealand, Miss Bowering ' divided her time between Mount Cook and Turangi, Mrs Evans said. ■ “We never really know where she is. She just turns up now and then with a backpack on,” she said.

Mrs Evans said, in answer to a question by Mr Colin Carruthers, counsel for the Labour member of Parliament Mr Reg Boorman, that her daughter had not really

lived continuously in Wairarapa since she was five years old. Her daughter had cast a vote in Wairarapa giving her parents’ address. Mrs Evans’ son, Wayne Andrew Bowering, also had his special vote challenged. Mrs Evans said he had been at Wellington Polytechnic since February, 1987, and was flatting in Wellington. In answer to Mr Brian Henry, for the petitioner, Mr Wyatt Creech, the National candidate at the last election, Mrs Evans said her son had spent most of the time between February and August last year in Wellington. Trevor George Bryan Rink, of, Pahiatua, gave evidence that he had cast a special vote for the Wairarapa electorate, although he had lived in the neighbouring electorate since 1985. Mr Rink said the reason for this was because he had turned up at a polling booth in Pahiatua to vote there only to discover he was not on the roll.

Replying, to Mr Carruthers, the witness said he had then been ushered to another booth in the polling area by both staff and had been handed forms to fill in. These had resulted in the vote being cast for Wairarapa, he said. In a shortened court sitting yesterday, because

of the panel of three judges having to adjourn early to meet travel arrangements home for the long week-end, the emphasis was on students who voted while living away from home. Evidence was also given about a number of special votes from young people who had left school to wbrk in Wellington. • ’ s\ Mr Carruthers gave notice that when the electoral court resumes- on Tuesday he*- would call rebuttal evidence ' on many of the witnesses suspended by the petitioner. iU Wairarapa commuters living in Wellington during the week and who voted in Wairarapa could have their votes ruled invalid, the electoral inquiry has ruled. Students living outside Wairarapa but working in the Wairarapa electorate could also be placed in the same position. - The High Court will infer that unless there is contrary evidence, a voter commuting from Masterton to Wellington weekly will have spent the greater part of his time in Wellington. The ruling was given by the Chief , Justice, Sir Ronald Davison. * He delivered a number of interim rulings of the High Court at Masterton. The inquiry is being heard by Sir Ronald Davison, with Mr Justice Greig

and Mr Justice Wylie. ' p Sir Ronald said that to' assist counsel in the conduct of the remainder of the hearing, the Court would give interim rulings. The Court’s reasons would be included in its final judgment. Sir Ronald said that a person commuting to ; Wellington or elsewhere outside the electorate on a weekly basis had two ’ places of residence, and * unless there 1 was from which a contrary* inference might be' drawn, the Court would infer tfciAt ' the -'greater ■ part of 'that v person’s time would have' been spent in Wellington 1 ; or elsewhere, as the case' might be. Sir Ronald said that the words “or otherwise” in* section :37 were to ; be' construed to be of the'-’ same type as a seaman, '’ an actor or commercial traveller. Dealing with the student voters, Sir Ronald said that a student living away from home, even, though solely for the purpose of gaining tertiary education, did not, come within the true provisions of section 37 (3), but was covered by section 37 (5) of the act. “While the declaration by a special voter is evidence to be taken s into account, the Court is unlikely readily to regard it as persuasive as to qualification if there is other cogent evidence to the contrary.” ■ ■ '