WESTERN MAORI SEAT

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 173, 10 April 1923, Page 8

WESTERN MAORI SEAT

SIR MAUI POMARE ELECTED SECRECY OF BALLOT NOT IMPERILLED NO AGENCY FOR EXPENDITURE PROVED

Sir Maui Pomare was yesterday declared duly elected to Parliament for the Western Maori seat by the judgment of their Honours, Mr. Justice Hosking and Mr. Justice Stringer, who had heard the election petition against him. ' ■ The only chai’ge not abandoned or disallowed during the hearing was that relating to the non-detachment of counterfoils from the voting papers, and in respect to this their Honours held, after reviewing the difference in procedure in Maori and other elections, that it could not be assumed that the scrutineers made use of the counterfoils for the purpose of committing a breach of their obligation of secrecy. No agency of expenditure of money for the convey- - ance of voters for the respondent was proved.

Ths following is the judgment of the Dourt: — "I. “Wo have already disallowed all the petitioner's charges which were not abandoned, except that relating to the ...non-detachment of the counterfoils ''"' from the voting papers. Evidence was admitted on this point subject to the

■ question whether it was allowable for >■# ."“the petitioner to go into it without an ‘ ‘.amendment of the petition, or the particulars, and if so, whether such an amendment could or should bo permit-

v - ted. Wo do not, however, considei it "'necessary to discuss that question, as f , wo are satisfied that the irregularity i relied upon is not sufficient in tho ciri cumstances of the case to defeat the election. MAORI ELECTION PECULIARITIES "" “The provision with regard to the conduct of ths election of a Maori , " member of Parliament, differ in several i material respects from those applicable in ths case of Europeans. There is no electoral roll. A person claiming to vote as a Maori enters tho polling ■ ' booth and declares his name, tribe, ! hapu; and abode, to the doputj’ re- < turning officer, an£ the or halfi caste, associated with him. One or other of these officials must then fill up this information in tho counterfoil of what is called a voting paper. The I elector is next asked to state the name of tho candidate for whom he desires to vote, and it is the duty of the de--1 puty to write that name on that portion of the voting paper separate from i the counterfoil. The deputy and tho associate then authenticate the voting paper by affixing thpir own names or ; initials. At the foot of the particu- ■ Jars on the counterfoil a 1 consecutive I number is inserted and the same num- ; her is placed at the head of the other portion of the voting paper, thus serving to identify one portion with the other. “From the foregoing statement it will be sgen that there is no secrecy in the voting, so far as the returning officer and the associate are concerned. They are necessarily informed of bow each elector voted. Differing again from the mode in which a European election is conducted, no scrutineer is admitted to tho polling booth until the votes come to be counted at the end of the polliing, and, apart from the person occupied in voting, no person is allowed to bo in the booth while the polling is in progress except the deputy returning officer and his associate and any clerks or constables engaged. Now tho statutory form of voting paper has a dotted line shown upon it in the space between the consecutive numbers, and may be surmised to thereby indicate that the paper ’ is to bp perforated there so as to be detachable. The voting papers were supplied in blocks of fifty, each paper being perforated so as to mark oft ‘a counterfoil. But by the instructions which were issued by the Electoral Department to deputy returning officers > of Maori electoral _ districts in anticipation of the election in question, thp deputies were specifically directed not to detach the voting paper from the counterfoil. Tlie like instructions had been conveyed to deputies on the occasion of all elections since the Amendment Act of 1910. According to the evidence of Mr. Gladstone, tcturning officer for the Western Maori Electoral District, there were, on the ■ occasion of the election in question, •179 polling booths in that district, and ‘the direction not to remove the coun- •’?< terfoil wag carried out at all the booths except four. By not detaching the voting paper what the returning officer describe as “the endless trouble of looking for counterfoils” is obviated.

VOTES COUNTED TWICE. “After the polling is completed there '-"are two countings of the. votes, the .first by i'ach deputy nt his own booth of tho votes recorded there, and tho —other by the returning officer of all ■■“/ the voting papers after they have been “ 'received by him from the various • booths. At each counting scrutineers r.“ appointed may attend. Mr. Gladstone says that before ho counted the votes, which he docs in the presence of his staff, a Justice of the Peace and the scrutineers, he detached the counterfoils himself so that no one but ho should see them. With regard to tho counting by the deputies at the booths, hi? gave the Court a demonstration of the mode of counting in which he personally instructed about 30 or 40 of the 179 officers—the mode which ho says had been followed on former occasions, and which most of thfc other deputies know of by previous experience. According to this mode the voting papers m the block would be turned back bodily upon the

counterfoils, with the result of hiding the face of the counterfoils from the person counting or any person looking on, and with the result also of facilitating the counting. The deputy does the counting by turning over the voting portions of the papers one at a time, while ths scrutineer looks on.

“Now the contention of the petitioner is that by reason of the general extent of the irregularity or mistake in not detaching the counterfoils the election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Legislature Act, and therefore the election should be declared void. There is no express provision as to the stage at which the voting paper is to bn detached from the counterfoil or, indeed, that it is to be detached at all. It may bo inferable that a detachment is to take place at some time or other, but we will assume as it was on the argument, that it would be sufficient if done before the deputy proceeds with his count in the presence of scrutineers, but which was not done except at four booths out of 179. SECRECY NOT IMPERILLED. “Tho argument for the petitioner must be that tho non-detachment of the counterfoils might have afforded to tho scrutineers, if any, present at the countings by il.e several deput'e.s an opportunity to learn how persons voted, and that by reason of this chance prevailing to tho extent it did, the election was not conduct ed in accordance with the prim cip’es laid down in th«* Act . . . In ths present case the only persons (outside of the returning officer, the deputy, and his associate) to whom the manner in which an elector cast his vote might become known, would bo the scrutineers at the first count, .for we have it that the returning officer removed the counterfoils before his count began. The evidence given by Mr. Gladstone as to the mode of Aealinp. with the papers renders it highly un likely that the secrecy of the voting was in fact, impaired by reason of the counterfoils not having been detached before the first count. The method of folding the papers so as to hide tmcounterfoils would be likely to be folowed, because it was either known to the deputies or they -were specially instructed in it, and because of tinfacility in counting which is afforded In the absence of evidence to the contrary it would bo a strong thing to assume that any scrutineer present at a deputy's counting was able to see the contents of the counterfoils. Further, the scrutineers as well as all others concerned are bound by oath (section GO (d) of the Act of 1910), and also under penalty (section 66) to preserve the secrecy of tho voting, and wo cannot make tho assumption that Scrutineers designedly sought to look nt the counterfoils if able to see them for the purpose of committing a breach of this obligation. “Then there is not the least evidence that any one was deterred from Toting by reason of the non-detaeh-ment of the counterfoil, or that the result of the election was in any respect effected thereby. This conclusion is fortified by the circumstances that at all the Maori elections since the legislation of 1910, the rule has prevailed of not detaching the counterfoils before the voting papers are sent back to the returning officer, and has prevailed apparently without any complaint or objection having been heard nntil now.

PETITION DISMISSED. •‘Such being our conclusion, and all tho other matters raised by the petitioner having been disposed of in favour of the respondent, the petition is ■hsmissecl, and the determination of tho Court is that tho respondent was duly elected and tho Honourable the Speaker of tho House of Representatives will bo certified . accordingly. ’•As to the two witnesses who gave evidence of their expenditure of money 4 -r the conveyance of voters—although we have held that in their doing so no agency for /the respondent, has been proved—they are, in our .opinion, entitled to a certificate of indemnity in terms of section 202 of tho Legislature Act, 1908. 'Tho costs, charges, and expenses of and incidental to tho petition and tho proceedings consequent thereon are to be fixed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court at Wellington and paid bv the petitioner to the respondent.” The question of tho interpreter’s fee was raised by counsel, but His Honour Mr. Justice'Hosking was of opinion that in the present case the services ol an internreter were as indispensable to the Court as the pens, ink and papei i procured to enable it to proceed to business, and that therefore neither party should be asked to pay tho interpreter’s fees. Mr. S. P. Skerrctt, K. C., with ilum Mr. I’. Levi, appeared at the hearing for tho petitioner, and Mr. M. Myers, K. 0., with him Mr. 11. F. O’Leary, tor tho respondent.