Town Clerk denies L.R.C. statement allegations

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32706, 8 September 1971, Page 18

Town Clerk denies L.R.C. statement allegations

The Town Clerk of Christchurch (Mr M. B. Hayes) vesterday said that allegations made in a written statement issued by the Labour Representation Committee, in reference to a discussion with him on electoral matters, were quite incorrect. The L.R.C. statement, signed by Mr A. F. Ross, vice-chairman, was printed in “The Press” yesterday.

“I did not agree ‘to correct* the statement made by me concerning the elegibility of students and certain other young single people to enrol, but merely to restate the position on the subjects of residential enrolments to try to remove any misunderstandings which might have arisen. “In fact, I repeat my interpretation, which is: “The position is covered by Section 29 (c) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1954, which states that the town clerk shall include on the roll the name of any per son of or over the age of 20 years who (inter alia) has: “‘A residential qualification, meaning thereby that he has resided for one year in New Zealand and has resided in the district during the three months then last past and is a British subject or has the status of a British subject or is an Irish citizen. For the purposes of this paragraph a person shall be deemed to reside in the place in which he has his permanent home.’ “There is a similar provision in Section 50 of the Counties Act, 1956. FORM OF ENROLMENT “The form of enrolment, which is prescribed in schedules to the two acts requires applicants to declare that they possess the necessary qualifications but does not make particular reference to the residential address being the ‘permanent home’. “To comply with these re-

qulrements, applicants should enrol for the districts in which their permanent home is situated, and, of course, they must not enrol for more than one locality. “The onus of declaring the address of the permanent home is, in my opinion, clearly a matter for the ap-

plicant. An incorrect declaration could render a person liable for a penalty for breach of the act.

“I also do not agree with the L.R.C. statement that ‘any student or other person . . . can elect to be placed on the local body electoral roll,’ as I consider there is an obligation to make a correct declaration. “MISLEADING” “The reference to sending a letter to a ‘selected group of city ratepayers’ is, I feel, very misleading,” Mr Hayes said. “The facts are that having learned that other local bodies were drawing the attention of companies, firms, partners, joint tenants, corporations, societies or associations (as defined in the Local Elections and Polls Act) to their rights tp have a nominee on the roll, we circularised all such ratepayers within the central area and all those in the Woolston, Sydenham, Phillipstown, Linwood and Spreydon areas.

“We did not feel that it was justified to go through all the over 50,000 names on our valuation roll as most of those entitled would have been covered by the areas referred to above.

“I most certainly. did not inform the L.R.C. deputation that I “was influenced by elected members of the Citizens’ Association to circulate a selected group of companies’ in this connection.

“QUESTION UNFAIR" “When questioned on this point, I replied that I considered the question to be unfair, and contended that the action taken was not inconsistent with the lengths to which we in Christchurch go to enrol persons with residential qualifications, such as setting up street stands in the city and main suburbs. It is.

after all, the duty of a town clerk to keep the district electors roll as accurate as possible.

• “I resent the suggestion that I have been using the machinery of local government to serve the ends of one political party,” Mr Hayes concluded.