COMMON FALLACIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23354, 20 November 1937, Page 14

COMMON FALLACIES

ELECTION PROCEDURE RIGHTS OF PROPAGANDISTS REVELATIONS BY MINISTER ‘From Oun Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Nov. 19. Some popular fallacies about the conduct of elections were exploded by the Minister of Justice (Mr H. G. R. Mason) during the debate on the Electoral Department Estimates in the House of Representatives to-day. One of Mr Mason’s revelations, which a member of the House later described as amazing in the light of previous beliefs, was that the issue of propaganda could be carried on right up until the polling had finished. A discussion on election procedure arose from a request by Mr S. G. Smith (Opposition, New Plymouth) that the Prime Minister should ban radio electioneering for a stipulated time in the same way as the use of other forms of propaganda, such as pamphlets, was restricted. Replying to this, Mr Mason said that it was a popular fallacy that th- issue of pamphlets and propaganda could not go on all the time. Mr Smith’s impression was a very common misunderstanding of the law. What was prohibited was the issue of mock ballot papers or anything of that nature. The reason for that prohibition was not far to “I know that the law has been given a wider interpretation,” Mr Mason said, “ but the popular interpretation is a fallacy. The prohibition that does exist was introduced to .suppress the use by ignorant people of anything like mock ballot papers. There have been people who accepted these mock ballot papers and used them in the belief that they were exercising their vote in the proper way.” The Minister added that it was also a popular fallacy that persons could not stand outside polling booths. One could stand there so long as there was no interference in any way with voters and no attempt to use moral pressure. At one time, he said, it had been almost impossible to enter a booth without having to take part in something like a wrestling match with'people seeking to force propaganda on the electors. That sort of thing had had to be suppressed, but there was nothing in the law to prevent persons standing at a' respectable distance from a booth to hand pamphlets and material to voters requesting information of such a nature. Mr S. G. Holland (Opposition, Christchurch North) interjected that there had been convictions for such practices. “If that is so, they were wrong convictions,” Mr Mason replied. “A Supreme Court judgment has laid it down that as long as there is no interference persons are not debarred from issuing pamphlets outside the booth. “ I am astounded at the Minister’s declaration,” said Mr R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs). “ In Wellington we were always advised that we could do nothing of that sort. Three days before the elections we have had to disband all our committees.” Mr Mason admitted, in answer to an inquiry by Mr Wright, that electors could not be canvassed on their way to the booth. “We believed that we could not even give an elector as much as a cup of tea,” Mr Wright said.