N.S.W. REFERENDUM

Hokitika Guardian, 16 May 1933, Page 5

N.S.W. REFERENDUM

“YES” VOTE GROWS

30,030 MAJORITY IS LIKELY.

(Australian Press Association)

SYDNEY, M?y 15

The New South Wales referendum count was continued to-day. It furthe r favoured the Government. Twelve thousand postal and absent votes were checked, two-thirds of whi/eh were “Yes” votes for the reform of the Legislative Council. The remainder were “No.”

Th e final result will not be known for several days, but the Premier's forecast that the referendum will bo carried by thirty thousand is likely tc He fulfilled.

Mr Lang s ays the campaign of ter rorism and intimidation conducted by th e Government and newspaper--succeeded in iinducing people to sur render their self-governing rights. The “Labour Daily” says : Labour, despite heavy handicaps, po’led wonderfully. The vote which is a certain augury that Labour will win in the next Federal and State elections, compared with figures at the June election poll, showed an increased Labour vote for a, hundred thousand,/and in effect wa s a vote of no confidence in the Stevens Government. In ho fewer than thirteen electorates, the Nationalist's majorities of eleven months sgo were converted Into Labour majorities, and in. twelve other electorates, large Nationalist majorities were reduced below a thousand. The majority of Mr. Lang in Auburn, on the other 'hand,, was 'increased by 4,500.

■VICTORY FOR THE GOVERNMENT

SYDNEY, May 15.

“The Telegraph” says: To com-, pare Labour’s figures at the last election with referendum figures is misleading, as it is. obvious that mar k v people who- voted against the Reform Bill, did not intend, their vote to be against the Government, phis isi • particularly obvious Oil :Nqrth, ghori- a.pd in Croydon, Mr | Stevens’ .. electorate. The “Herald” in a leader on the referendum says- . ; The, popular *vote ; whiich passed the referendum on Sturdily was a , . ..victory :f°r, % Government. ••. 'Opponents; of. the ~ Bil iifi.ed little, valid , argument against but liad many : factors, to help them It was an easy matter for leaders of the Langist appeal to play upon, the despondenev of. struggling citizens, and ,arouse in them resentment and passion rather than desire to understand the facts. .

VOTES WRONGLY CREDITED

LANG CRITICISES SYSTEM.

(Received this..day ;nt 9.25. a.m.) - ... SYDNEY, May .10... A re-cheek -of..the,teferencLun votes in Botany disclosed the -fact that about. 1283 “no” votes had been wrongly credited to “yes.” The figures _ for Botany ond Sunday night-were given as “yes” <620; “no” 11,740, but,., as the result of yesterday’s check, . the figures are: “yes” 6340, “no’ 13,034. The affirmative majority in the referendum now is £0,942.

“The whole ballot is under suspicion because the Government went out of its way to* prevent scrutineers,” said Mr J. S. Lang, referring to the mistake in. eight of the ;90 s p,i >ts, if take at Botany. o“A similar mistake in eight of the ninety seats, if discovered, would turn the apparent “yes,” 1 majority into a verdict against the Government. That similar mistakes, accidental or deliberate, have been made in more than eight electorates is very evident.” , ■ Thd Attorney-General '(Mr A. G. Manning, M.L.C.) replies that there is "no uistification for the suggestion that a" mistake of this sort might be general because of the absence of scrutineers. Mistakes, of course, were possible under any system, but the efficiency of the present system was demonstrated by the fact that this mistake was discovered m time and corrected. It is proof of the. sufficiency. not the insufficiency of the check.