Leaflet ‘misleading’

Press, 4 October 1977, Page 6

Leaflet ‘misleading’

Parts of a Labour Party; leaflet on Christchurch City i Council rates were “deliber-| ately misleading and blatantly! inaccurate,” the Mayor (Mr H G. Hay) said yesterday. The Labour Mayoral candidate (Mr H. A. Clark) "should do his homework more thoroughlv, or refrain from publicly displaying his ignorance in financial matters.” Mr Hay said that figures could be “manipulated by some ambitious politicians to prove anything, but it is clear that Labour are either out of their depth in their analysis of the movement in rates, or —as I suspect—being deliberately devious in their: attempt to win votes.” The leaflet purported to. ahow percentage increases ini rates of the former Labour’ council, compared with the i present council’s rises. “It conveniently ignores the'

very significant impact of the differential rating introduced [this year,” Mr Hay said. “This ! resulted in a rise of only 2.3 ■ per cent in City Council rates, and not the 20 per cent figure in the Labour propaganda leaflet.” Labour councillors knew there had been relief for residential ratepayers this year through the new system, but only grudgingly admitted it was not as much as they had wanted. The leaflet also said that Labour would further reduce the share of rates jpaid bv homeowners and flat dwellers. “It is about time Mr Clark came clean, and was more specific as to iust how he and his fellow financial wizards propose to achieve this obiective.” Mr May said. He noted that the Citv Council also collected rates for ad hoc bodies.

"The increase in totai rates levied by al! authorities is in fact 80.73 per cent over the last three years—not ‘more than doubled’ as Labour claim. But differential rating would reduce this figure to about 65 per cent for residential ratepayers.” That increase was "very much in line” with the 50.7 per cent inflation increase over that period "when one considers that, in the last year of the Labour administration. rates assessed were probably SIM less than they should have been because of the 1974 5500.000 land sale bribe, and the overspending of a similar amount that year.” Mr Hay said. The present council could not have controlled inflation, which had risen only 26.8 per cent during the previous ■ council’s term, he said.