SERVICEMEN’S VOTING AT GENERAL ELECTION

Southland Times, Issue 25545, 13 December 1944, Page 3

SERVICEMEN’S VOTING AT GENERAL ELECTION

REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE DEBATED BY HOUSE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, December 12. The conduct of the general election in the Middle East in 1943 was debated in the House of Representatives today. The House devoted the afternoon to a discussion of the report of the Select Committee on Servicemen’s Voting. Mr A. G. Osborne (Lab., Onehunga) who was chairman of the select committee, initiated the debate, which, it was agreed, should continue beyond the usual sitting hours. Mr Osborne moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the report.

Mr Osborne, opening the debate on the motion to adjourn the House, said an Opposition member had interjected the other day that the committee’s report was a “yes man’s report.” The fact was that the “no man’s” attitude of the National members of the select committee was more in evidence than the “yes man” attitude of the Government members. As chairman he was unanimously asked by the committee to prepare a draft report as a basis of further discussion, but the committee discussed one clause only of the draft and then, when the committee resumed, an Opposition member said they did not propose to discuss the report further, but were prepared to take a vote on the remaining clauses, which were accordingly taken with no further discussion. The attitude of some Opposition members was extraordinary and showed a lack of responsibility. When the final clause was reached two Opposition members of the committee actually raised their hand ’in support of the clause as definitely expressing their opinion, but the member for Central Otago bludgeoned them and cracked the whip and the members for Riccarton and Mataura had to fall into line. (This was greeted by laughter from the Opposition benches.) Mr Clyde Carr (Lab., Timaru): Freedom of conscience in the National Party. OPPOSITION’S ATTITUDE Mr Osborne said the committee heard the evidence of 20 different people and all the evidence gave him the impression that the special returning officer had done a great job of work. It became apparent early in the committee’s sitting that the members of the Opposition were more concerned than anything else with endeavouring to get evidence that could in some way be used to indict the Government and prove that it was in some way responsible for something improper in connection with the burning of the ballot papers, but the evidence completely failed to indicate anything improper. He understood the Opposition would contend that the special returning officer in the Middle East was incompetent and that because he was a junior officer in the Public Service grading the Government was responsible for sending an incompetent junior officer to superintend the Middle East voting. The fact was that the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, had made the most searching inquiries about Major Bryan, the officer who was sent as special returning officer when an officer of the Internal Affairs Department who was originally selected was unable to go. Major Bryan had 12 years’ experience in the Public Service, having been assistant to the Chief Electoral Officer since 1931 and holding the position of first assistant electoral officer at the time he went to the Middle East. His selection was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. Mr Osborne said that no evidence of incompetency on Major Bryan’s part came before the committee, despite the most lengthy examination and Opposition attempts to confuse him and trap him into an admission of something which did not occur. The only question was his error of judgment in burning the papers. Every witness before the committee who came from the Middle East, including Brigadier N. W. McD. Weir and Captain Bolland, who was Major Bryan’s chief assistant, paid a tribute to Major Bryan’s efficiency, thoroughness and impartiality. Brigadier Weir had completely confirmed Major Bryan’s evidence. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat., Central Otago): Completely knocked it out. BRIGADIER WEIR’S TESTIMONY Mr Osborne said Brigadier Weir had testified to the great job done by Major Bryan and said he had heard no complaint from the members of the division concerning the taking of the vote. _ ■ Mr Osborne said the air of suspicion and mudslinging which had been inI dulged in by some members of the j Opposition were completely unjustified ' in terms of the evidence. Not one of • the deputy returning officers in the i Middle East was selected by Major | Bryan. Every person who assisted him I had been nominated by 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force Headquarters • itself, not by Major Bryan. Mr Osborne said he would like the member for Waikato to make in the House the statement he had made to the committee that there was evidence of collusion. In fact, he would challenge the member for Waikato to repeat that statement outside the House, j so that decent honourable people would have a chance of getting redress. If that statement had been correct it would have been necessary for between 20 and 30 persons to be a party to impropriety and the evidence showed conclusively that that had not been the case. Mr J. T. Watts (Nat., Riccarton), opening the debate for the Opposition, said the chairman’s draft report was presented to the committee at 9.30 a.m. on the final day of the sitting. It was discussed for an hour, until the House sat at 10.30, the discussion ranging over various pages and clauses of the report. It was quite evident from that hour’s discussion that unanimity would not be reached on any point. Accordingly, when the committee resumed at 2 p.m. that day, it was suggested that the vote on the clauses might as well be taken. Nothing was further from the truth than to say that the whips were cracked against himself and the member for Mataura. They were considering the legal meaning of the final clause, but soon found that they could not possibly vote in favour of it. Mr P. G. Connolly (Lab., Dunedin West): But you had your hands up and were told to take them down. Mr Bodkin: Nonsense. REQUEST FOR INQUIRY Mr Watts said that any Government which allowed either the integrity of the Civil Service or the purity of the ballot system to be questioned was to be blamed. It was a matter of history that in totalitarian countries both principles had been undermined, with the result that the whole democratic system had crumbled and dictators had been set up. Blame must attach to the Government if only for the fact that there had had to be an inquiry into the election. There had been a serious dereliction of duty by Government officials and blame must be attached to the Government for not having directed that the election should be conducted in an impartial manner and for not giving proper directions to its officials. The Government at the last election had been kept in office by the soldiers’ votes and after the election there had been rumours up and down the country about the conduct of the election. The Leader of the Opposition had asked the Prime Minister for an inquiry, but the Prime Minister had pooh-poohed the matter. Some months later the Prime Minister had reported on the burning of the ballot papers and then the committee had been set up to investigate. As far back as March 16, 1943, the 2nd N.Z.E.F. had asked for policy state-

ments for distribution well before the date of the election. The evidence showed that the 2nd N.Z.E.F. had cabled in July 1943 asking why the first rei quest had not been replied to and an urgent cablegram was sent late in August again asking for policy statements. The Chief Electoral Officer had asked for all policy statements by September 4 and the National Party had delivered its statement to him on that day, but the Labour Party did not deliver its material until September 10 and 6000 soldiers in the Middle East had voted without having any opportunity to consider the statements, which were cabled on September 12. As far as the Pacific was concerned the National Party had sent a plain statement of policy, because it understood that was what would be allowed, but the Labour Party had used every art of newspaper display to make their propaganda appeal to the voters. QUESTION OF SECURITY Mr Watts sftd Major Bryan had not asked for space to ship the papers back to New Zealand, but had gone to Brigadier Weil’ and had said he understood that no space was available. He had not explored any alternatives, although the papers could have been posted back or could have been shipped on the vessel upon which Major Bryan returned. The evidence showed that the question of security did not enter into the matter at all. Major Bryan had not consulted the security officers and the evidence was that the only value of the papers to the enemy would have been in the enemy securing all of the papers and at the same time being certain that he had secured all of them. Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said that not a single part of the evidence taken by the committee would support Mr Watts’s arguments. Months of agitation by the National Party and the reactionary Press had failed to whip up interest in the debate and the whole question, apart from the National Party and a few editorials, was as dead as the dodo. By the time the Government speakers had been heard the public would be satisfied that the whole thing was nothing but a political stunt. The evidence showed that Major Bryan was an efficient electoral officer and that there was a danger to security in the Middle East if the papers fell into enemy hands. He challenged the Opposition to show any evidence that there was any direct or indirect interference with the ballot or that the result of the election had been affected in any way. Mr T. R. Macdonald (Nat., Mataura) said that after the ballot papers were burned some months had elapsed before the burning was announced and following that nearly a year had gone by before the House had an opportunity to consider it. Government members might complain about suspicions, but the people had been kept in suspense and suspense was a good seed-bed for suspicion, so if there was suspicion the Government was responsible. INFORMAL BALLOT PAPERS Mr Macdonald said that Major Bryan’s evidence was that most of the 950 informal ballot papers were blank. Cables were sent from New Zealand to Major Bryan stating the progress voting in 10 close electorates and asking him to expedite the figures for those electorates. This was a most unfair position for any public servant to be placed in. “What rotten suggestion are you making?” was one of a chorus of interjections from the Government benches at this stage. Mr Macdonald said that if Major Bryan had been in any doubt about the disposal of the papers he could have cabled New Zealand for instructions and the Government would have had no hesitation in telling him they should not be destroyed. Major Bryan, after deciding that the papers should be burned, went on leave and was actually not present himself when the burning occurred. When the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Irwin, received advice from the Middle East that the papers had been burned he apparently told nobody. It was not until January 10, 1944, that the Prime Minister was told the papers had been burned and this apparently only as a result of persistent inquiries by the New Zealand Alliance, which had asked for an opportunity to check the overseas voting on the licensing question when the papers from overseas reached New Zealand. But for the persistence of the New Zealand Alliance the whole matter might have been given a convenient official burial, said Mr Macdonald. To say the least, the whole matter showed a shocking weakness in the arrangements made for the conduct of the overseas voting. Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Lab., Christchurch South) said Mr Macdonald, by saying Major Bryan should have cabled for instruction and that the Government would have had no hesitation in telling him that the papers should be returned to New Zealand, had himself answered most of the Opposition’s argument, because it indicated his own confidence in the integrity of the Government in the matter. PRELIMINARY COUNT Mr W. S. Goosman (Nat., Waikato) asked why the Government had cabled the preliminary count overseas. It was claimed that they were for publication in The N.Z.E.F. Times, but all the matter for that paper was sent to the New Zealand Expeditionary Force and not to the returning officer. Why were the ballot papers burned? Things were usually burned to cover something up. Why was the news of the burning concealed from the public. The Prime Minister said that if anyone in the House or out of it said that, he or any other Minister would say it was a lie and he would throw the lie back in their teeth. He said he did not think anyone was to blame for the delay in the forwarding of the election statements and he did not think the delay mattered. The question of sending preliminary returns to the Middle East had been raised, but the men at the front had a right to know the preliminary figures. An Opposition member: Why didn’t you send the lot, why only 10 vital seats? Mr Fraser said the whole attitude of the Opposition before the inquiry, during the inquiry and since had been to make innuendos. He was very jealous of the good name of the House and of our democratic institutions and any persons who would tinker in any way with the electoral machinery would be guilty of the greatest treachery and not fit to be in the House or any other society. SELECTION OF PERSONNEL Mr Fraser said the point which concerned the House and the country was whether all had been straight and above board about the recording of the■ soldiers’ votes. Was the election an honest election? Were the arrangements |

for the voting by the servicemen carefully prepared and efficiently planned? He did not think there could be any doubt about that. Were the electoral personnel carefully selected. He quoted what had happened when the selection was made and said the evidence was that selection was made with care. Was the work of the returning officers and their assistants capable and efficient, and were the voting facilities sufficient in the circumstances? There could be no question of the energy put into the job and no charge of dishonesty could be made against" any of the officers concerned. Was the ballot conducted honestly? The evidence of responsible army officers proved that everything was in order. Certainly the burning of the papers was a wrong procedure. He thought the reasons given for this by Major Bryan were inadequate, but he emphatically denied collusion with himself or any Minister in the matter. Such methods were foreign to them. The burning of the papers in no way affected the results of the election. In fact, if the Middle East votes had been eliminated altogether, the only electorate which would have been affected would have been Eden. Discussing what happened after the papers were burned, Mr Fraser said it was regrettable that the fact of the burning was kept from the acting Prime Minister and from himself until he came across what appeared to be an evasion. ELECTION INTERRUPTED Mr Bodkin said Lieutenant-General Sir Bernard Freyberg himself had stepped in and interrupted the election because the propaganda material had not arrived and he was determined to protect the interests of the servicemen. Where the Government showed a lack of frankness as the Government had done in this matter it could not squeal if the worst construction were placed on the evidence brought forward. Government members, who were a 6-4 majority on the committee, voted to exclude the Press and also to exclude counsel whom the National Party had engaged to cross-examine the witnesses and for whose appearance before the select committee there was ample precedent. Mr Bodkin asked why there was such haste to conduct the official count. On Major Bryan’s own evidence the official count was taken when 536 votes were still unaccounted for. One possible construction was that the papers were burned for some purpose not disclosed.

Mr Bodkin said that in the committee proceedings the Government had attempted to blame the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Irwin, for not advising it when he learned by cable from the Middle East of the burning of the papers. Mr Irwin gave his evidence and was “absolutely pilloried” and “thrashed unmercifully” while Mr Nash sat by and did not protest. But there was consternation in the camp when the Opposition members of the committee called the man who had deciphered the cable to Mr Irwin. His evidence was that no fewer than six copies were taken, one being sent to the Prime Minister, one to the head of the Prime Minister’s Department and one to the Chief Electoral Officer. The bluff was thus called, said Mr Bodkin. It appeared that the Prime Minister had given an instruction that he was to be shown every cable from the Middle East concerning the election. The subsequent story was that because the Prime Minister was away at the time this cable to Mr Irwin arrived it was not thought important enough to show to the acting Prime Minister, Mr Nash. It and other cables were locked in a safe and were there until Mr Fraser returned and then were carefully burned without being shown to him. Mr Bodkin concluded it was a revelation to see the lengths the Government went to to get from witnesses before the committee the sort of evidence the Government wanted to get. PROPAGANDA DELAYED The Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, said that in a discussion of the delay in forwarding propaganda it must be remembered that the propaganda of all parties, and not one party only, was delayed. Sir Bernard Freyberg in a cable dated August 21 had asked for the material to arrive by September 9 to appear in the election number of The N.Z.E.F. Times to be published on September 12. Actually it was published on September 15. The delay, therefore, was not great. In any case, it was most unfair that Lieutenant-General Freyberg’s name should have been dragged in by the Opposition in an attempt to discredit the Government. Mr Nash said his first personal knowledge of the burning of the papers was in July, when he heard an interjection in the House. STATEMENTS TO COMMITTEE Mr Nash said the Opposition was trying to get over to the country that he knew that the papers had been burned and in conjunction with Mr Irwin had deceived the New Zealand Alliance. That was a despicable lie. What he had said to the committee was what he knew and no more. Mr Bodkin: But you will admit that the responsibility was on you. Mr Nash said he had been dumbfounded when the Chief Electoral Officer had said he knew when he submitted the letter that it was not possible to examine the papers. Mr R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera): He misled his own Minister. Mr Nash: Oh, yes. He affirms that. Mr Nash said he did not think anything could be worse than that, but what the member for Waikato suggested was that Mr Nash had known and there was collusion. There could be nothing more despicable than for a member to say that. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford) rose to a point of order and asked that the term despicable as applied to Mr Goosman should be withdrawn.

Mr R. McKeen, who was acting Speaker, said the Minister claimed that the members’ statement was despicable, not that the member was. Therefore’ the Minister was in order. Mr Nash, in conclusion, said the ballot papers should not have been burned and when they were burned he, as acting Prime Minister, should have been advised.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, said the question the House had to decide was: Was the election properly conducted? Was the burning of the ballot papers warranted, and were the reasons given for their destruction valid?

Mr Holland asked why the burning of the ballot papers had been kept from the House and the country for so long. A copy of the cable had been sent to

the Prime Minister’s Department stating that the papers had been burned, but the story was that it had been put aside and later had been removed from the file. In spite of that the committee had found that there was no irregularity and that nothing had been concealed, but how could anyone say that when the papers were gone? GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY Mr Holland said he did not believe the reasons given for destroying the papers, because Major Bryan had not asked for shipping space and had not consulted the security officers. A very grave responsibility had rested upon the Government to see that the poll was carried out impartially, but the National Party’s policy statement had been deliberately held back and 6000 men had voted without knowing anything about the policy or the party members. Mr Holland said nothing would convince him that his party was treated fairly. Five hundred and three more servicemen’s votes would have given them seven more seats and if the Government had played the game they would have stood a fair chance of getting that many more votes. “I don’t think that the election was conducted fairly or squarely or that the National Party was treated fairly and squarely,” he said. The Minister of Rehabilitation, Mr Skinner, dealt with the need for security in the Middle East and said that if he had been in Major Bryan’s position he would have acted as Major Bryan did in burning the papers. The debate was continued on similar lines by other speakers.