Three Avon claimants renominated

Press, 27 September 1983, Page 1

Three Avon claimants renominated

Early indications are that the Labour Party, after reopening nominations for the Avon seat, may be presented with the same field to choose from.

The sitting member, Mrs Mary Batchelor, yesterday announced her intention to put her name forward again as did her two previous challengers, Mr Paul Piesse and Mr David Penney. However, none of those tipped as possible candidates said they would offer themselves for the candidacy when approached by “The Press” yesterday. The chairman of the Christchurch City Council’s finance committee, Miss Vicki Buck, considered by some to be Mrs Batchelor’s heir apparent and a popular choice, reaffirmed her previously stated position. She would not stand against another woman, and if Mrs Batchelor wanted the nomination she would not challenge her.

Another City Councillor, Mr David Close, declared his confidence in Mrs Batchelor and said that he “certainly would not stand against her.”

“I have worked with Mary (Mrs Batchelor) for 10 years and will continue to work with her and for her,” he said.

The chairman of the council’s cultural committee, Miss Louisa Crawley, took the same line. She said that she was “very pleased” that Mrs Batchelor would stand again and that she would not challenge a sitting member. Miss Crawley put her name forward for the Sydenham nomination but said that that was “a different kettle of fish altogether.” Another City Councillor, Mr Geoff Stone, said that he had not even thought of offering himself for the seat and that Avon constituents had “two good candidates to choose from already — Mrs Batchelor and Mr Piesse.” Two other councillors had been named as possible candidates should nominations be reopened. They are Mr Alex Clark and Mrs Mollie Clark. Both said that they would consider standing if asked.

However, Mrs Clark said that she would be “loath to oppose Mrs Batchelor” because she was a sitting member and a woman. Also there was “no satisfactory evidence” to suggest that she had not been “doing the job.”

Mr Clark said that while he would “respond to interest if it was shown in the electorate” he thought that both Mrs Batchelor and Mr Piesse would get more sup-

port than any “outsider” at this stage. “Opinion has been polarised,” he said, “and feeling is running fairly high so I don’t think outside candidates will be particularly well received.” The president of the Canterbury Trades Council, Mr Wes Cameron, has also been touted as interested in the nomination. He was runnerup in the recent Sydenham electorate selection. However, he fought for Mrs Batchelor’s candidacy in 1972 and has declared his continuing support for her. “The Press” was unable to reach Mr Cameron for comment yesterday but Mrs Batchelor said that he remained loyal to her as “one of the few down-to-earth workers’ voices” left in a Parliament increasingly dominated by “intellectuals and political theorists.” , The chairman of the party’s regional council in Canterbury and secretary of the Labourers’ Union, Mr Garth Lomax, seems most likely to stand although he said yesterday that it was not his “current intention” to offer himself for the nomination. He declined to comment further on his own ambitions or to make any predictions. He said that the panel might finish up with the same field but equally that “all sorts of people” might come forward. Most were probably playing “a sitting back and waiting game” and would declare themselves when they saw fit. Nominations were reopened after the five-mem-ber selection panel declined to choose between Mrs Batchelor and Mr Piesse on September 14. Sources within the party say that the straw vote was too close to be conclusive and that the two electorate representatives, Mr Dick Low and Mr Trevor Smith, plumped for Mr Piesse while the three New Zealand Council members, Messrs Jim Anderton, John Wybrow, and John Hercus, supported Mrs Batchelor. The issue was referred to the council which generally resolves deadlocks by appointing the sitting member. Mrs Batchelor said yesterday that, by departing from that procedure, the council had shown “a singular lack of loyalty” to her and that she no longer had any faith in it.

She said that she had been persuaded to stand again by the support of her constituents and that if she won the straw vote, she might swing the selection.

She conceded that the council representatives on the panel might not stay with her this time. “It seems that what one would expect to be a normal reaction is not necessarily so,” she said. It is thought that the two electorate committee members will again vote for Mr Piesse as Mrs Batchelor has little support there. The secretary of the Canterbury. regional office of the Labour Party, Mr Ron Simpson, said yesterday that the selection panel might find itself “back with the same old horses.”

If that happened and if it failed again to reach a decision, the matter would be referred back to the

council which would likely appoint a candidate, possibly from a wider field, he said.

Mr Piesse is secretary of the Canterbury Stores, packing and Warehouse Workers’ Union and has strong support among party activists and trade unionists. His intention to offer himself for the nomination again is not surprising given that he so nearly won it the First time. Mr Penney, an automotive surveyor in the Ministry of Transport, was never a serious contender. He said yesterday that he would stand but that he hoped the reopening of nominations would produce a wider field. “They .(the electorate) could do with someone fronting up who is more credible than any of us,” he said.