COMPULSORY VOTING

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10541, 18 March 1920, Page 7

COMPULSORY VOTING

(To the Editor "N.Z. Times.") Sir,— In your issue of tie sth. instant you state that I had said that compulsory voting would be introduced next session, on. the word of the Premier, and you go on to state that the Premier said he had given no such, promise. The reporter has evidently considered my chance remark in a -way that I did not intend. What I stated was that compnlsory voting would no doubt become law next session, as I had the word of the Premier that he was in favour of this reform. My justification for this remark arose as 'follows: In a debate on the Legislature -Amendment Bill in the House on September 30th, 1919, Sir John Findlay, interjecting while Mr Massey was speaking, said, "Do you not think voting ought to be compulsory V Mr Massey said, "1 do. I have corns -round to that opinion. I do not know whether it is. possible to arrange it, but I nave come to the conclusion that voting ought to be in some way compulsory.' Sir John Findlay subsequently expressed has gratification at the statement made by the Prime Minister. I had, by a coincidence,, just tabled a remit for the Chamber of Commerce Conference on this very matter, and, feeling strongly in the matter, I wrote Mr Massey, expressing my pleasure at the stand he had taken. Mr Massey courteously replied to me on October Bt.h, 1910, as follows-. "Dear sir,—l have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant in reference to an announcement maoe by me that 1 wa» in favour of compulsory voting, and expressing: the hope that a bill would bo introduced this session dealing with this matter. In reply I have to thank you for the sentiments expressed by you on this important question. Careful consideration will be given to it, but it will not be possible to do anything in regard to it tnia session.—Yours faithfully, W. F. Massey, Prime Minister." . On this letter I claim I was justified in making the remark that I did at the conforence of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and had I been reported correctly there would have been no need for Mr'Massey to have issued his denial of my statement, or for the Press Association to have published it. I am sure, in view of Ihis explanation, Mr Massey will agree that his letter to me justifies the remark I made. . ROBT. L. PATEBISON.