Appeal Threat On P-NG Election

P-NG Election

From a Port Moresby Correspondent For weeks both electoral and legal officials had been sneer ing at the suggestion any candidate in Papua-New Guinea’s House of Assembly elections would appeal against the declara tion of a candidate because he hadn’t achieved what the Electoral Ordinance described as an “absolute majority”.

»UT the sneers faded into long, * grim faces when Kainantu inter Mr. Mick Casey notified ief Electoral Officer Mr. R. R. yant of his intention to lodge such appeal.

Lhe world at large learned of •. Casey’s move when the ABC jadcast the news on April 12.

And the next day the Adminis tion headquaters at Konedobu iply buzzed.

What would happen if Casey’s peal was heard and upheld while ;re was still time for other un :cessful candidates to appeal?

Would there be a resultant spate of

appeals? Whose fault was the ap parent legislative blunder?

Was there anything the Govern ment could do to forestall the possi bility of re-elections throughout the Territory if the Casey appeal was upheld?

These questions have been dis cussed under every fan in the laby rinth of blue and white official buildings.

But nowhere have they been dis cussed with such authority, or with such interest, as in the book-lined offices of the Crown Law Depart ment.

Here the matter has been under

discussion for months. The bulk of opinion is that any appeal based on the grounds upon which Mr, Casey stands is almost bound to succeed.

And this weight of opinion exists despite the brave noises made by Secretary for Law Mr. W. W. Wat kins. When asked if it was true there was a flaw in the ordinance Mr. Watkins said, “I am sure the ordinance will stand up in a court”.

He added that the suspect clause should not be read on its own. “It should be read in conjunction with other sections,” he said, and dis missed the subject.

Mr. Casey has based his appeal on Section 161 of the ordinance, which says that to be returned a candidate must have more than one half the total votes cast in the electorate.

In the electorate in question, South Markham, Mr. Gilmore—already re turned—does not have this “absolute majority”.

He polled 9,311 of 23,932 votes re corded. His two opponents, ex- Legislative Councillor Lloyd Hurrell and Mr. Casey, polled 8,963 and 5,658 respectively.

The legal men agree that the only defence to such an appeal would be

that it was obviously not the inten tion of the ordinance to prevent a :andidate with the greatest number if votes from being elected.

But, they add, section 161 denies hat argument by specifically saying t is the ordinance’s intention to keep i man out if he doesn’t have the equired “absolute majority”.

When the apparent fault was first jrought to light Mr. Bryant know ngly said, “The ordinance gives me he authority to interpet it as I vish”.

This statement horrified the Crown .aw men who retorted (not mblicly), “Only within the ordinance tself, and it leaves no room for per onal views”.

Then Mr. Bryant, sensing appeals n the air, came out with what he aid was his interpretation of pre erential voting.

“Under the preferential system the andidate with the lowest number of >rimary votes is eliminated. The econd preferences are then dis ributed among candidates, each pre erence having the full value of one ote.

“If no candidate at this stage has , majority (Mr. Bryant did not say absolute majority”) then the next uccessive candidate with the lowest lumber of votes is eliminated and be same procedure followed.

“This continues until one candidate as an absolute majority, or when it omes down to two candidates, one if whom has an absolute majority if votes left in the count.”

Points Not Clear No-one has been able to under tand what Mr. Bryant meant by votes left in the count”—least of all ome of his returning officers who abled and telephoned him for ex lanations after they had received a ircular amending the procedure they ad originally been instructed to dopt.

Just how soon Mr. Casey’s appeal /ill be heard by the Court of Dis uted Returns is not yet known.

If Mr. Casey’s appeal is heard nd resolved in his favour while thers still have time to appeal, other nsuccessful candidates may be en ouraged to appeal.

There are 32 electorates, both open nd reserved, in which the returned andidate does not have an absolute lajority as defined by the ordinance.

If there were a number of success- Lil appeals, and re-elections were orced, amendment would be needed 3 the ordinance to prevent the situ tion repeating.

Only the new House of Assembly, provided it had a quorum of 22, could make the amendment. But there seems no doubt that quorum would be achieved.

Whatever happens in other elec torates, if Mr. Casey’s appeal suc ceeds it will vindicate the arguments of several past members of Legisla tive Council—that too often does the Territory accept Australian legisla tion without closely examining it to make sure it will work in P-NG.

The trouble in this case lay in the decision, in P-NG, that although the Australian preferential system of vot ing had been adopted in the Terri

tory, it was necessary in order to cast a valid vote to mark only one name.

Had the full preferential system been employed then the winning candidate must have got over 50 per cent, of the votes.

When the legislation was first in troduced in the old Legislative Council by the Director of Post and Telegraphs it was stated that a vote would be valid if the voter marked “say, the first four or five names”.

Later this was cut to one when it was realised that few native electors could cope with the Australian preferential system and that if more were insisted upon then the majority of the votes would be informal.