Apology demanded

Press, 5 September 1980, Page 1

Apology demanded

>A i 1 ; '? "■ Auckland The ‘president, of. ■ the Labour ;Party.'(Mr J. P. An-, derton) last .evening, demanded a public apology from the Social Credit deader (Mr r B.' C. Beetham) concerning accusations over a smear pamphlet. Mr Beetham said on Wednesday evening that the anti-Social Credit pamphlet attacking both him and the East Coast Bays candidate for the byelection on . Saturday, looked as if it was the work of the Labour Party.

It was not subtle enough for- the National Party, he said. But Mr Anderton said yesterday that the Labour Party put'its name to any literature written by it. ' ■/ ’, . ■’/,'■ • '■ “We — unlike the National-. Party—have no overt or covert dirty tricks brigade,” he said. : Mr .Anderton was apalIqd that Social Credit and the National Party had centred their East Coast Bays’ campaigns on leaflets and letters to the editorsof newspapers. ;

“Mr .Beetham’s crying ■ about smears has . convicted the Labour Party-with-•out a shred of evidence to : support his accusations,” ;hetsaid.The authors, and disfri- : butors of: an,- anti-Social ■ Credit persona! smear leafTet', which appeared on Wednesday evening in East Coast Bays, remained a mystery yesterday. ■

League members took the registration number of a car outside , Rangitqto College where the Social • Credit East Coast Bays byelection 1 candidate, Mr Garry Knapp, was holding his final campaign meeting. They.thought people.in the car might have been responsible • for sticking copies of the. leaflet • on• the windows of many cars parked in’and around the college during Mr Knapp’s meeting.

However, reporters approached the young man who owns the car at his North Shore job yesterday and he denied knowing any thing.about the leaflet. The leaflet includes cynical remarks about Mr Bee-

tham’s political abilities .' and makes several personal . accusations • against Mr. : Knapp. It contains theMea- , gue’s logo and is marked ;• “Social Credit.” - : ' Mr-Beetham on Wednesday evening called the pamphlet “cheap. filthy and despicable.” He said it was the “lowest of the low.” It was “too unsubtle to have been produced by National.”- Some of the wording, he said, indicated that it was Labouroriented.