Political pistol forced on M.P.

Press, 5 August 1988, Page 1

Political pistol forced on M.P.

By

BRENDON BURNS,

political reporter

A loaded political pistol, charged with either sacrificing principles or losing Labour caucus membership, was yesterday handed to Sydenham’s Mr Jim Anderton by the Prime Minister, Mr Lange..

Yet Mr Anderton achieved a paper victory for his stand against asset sales, Mr Lange saying that the Labour mani-festo-breaking promise to sell Postßank would be reviewed. But Mr Anderton was earlier moved to describe as fair and reasonable a resolution put to the caucus by Mr Lange which the latter said was a pistol for Mr Anderton.

It required Labour members to vote with the Government unless specifically authorised to abstain or oppose any legislation. Failure to observe the resolution automatically costs the member membership of the Labour caucus.

Mr Anderton had emerged from what he termed a “bruising” 214 hour caucus meeting looking subdued and expressing the hope that his colleagues would allow him to continue abstaining on the sale of State assets.

In contrast Mr Lange seemed to have enjoyed the start to his forty-sixth birthday, beyond the cake and cheer provided by his colleagues. He may have neatly sidestepped the prospect of any ousting of Mr Anderton from the

caucus before the Labour Party’s annual conference early next month.

Delegates would attack the Government mercilessly if Mr Anderton were to lose caucus membership before the conference.

Dispensation will be sought at next week’s caucus meeting by Mr Anderton against having to vote for asset sales.

But any decision might be delayed, and also the reintroduction of the legislation — the Finance No. 3 Bill— until after the September conference. Asked if he had bought time with his resolution affirmed by the caucus, Mr Lange said, “No, rubbish. I’m all for buying time. I bought a bit of time about a month ago.” (His recent heart treatment.) His resolution had clarified any vagueness in caucus rules. Anyone who from now on abstained without permission from supporting a Government bill, or voted against it, was disqualified from the caucus.

There would be no backdating of this rule against Mr Anderton for his actions last week in refusing to support the postBudget asset sales legislation.

This was not a case of giving him a second chance, said Mr Lange.

“No. We have given him a pistol ...” . It was up to him whether this was fired? < . “Yes. He can choose.” Mr Anderton at a later, separ-, ate press conference said such comments by Mr Lange were not necessary.

“I am sorry that that is the language that has been used.”

He said the resolution allowed for the caucus to consider granting dispensation from voting with the Government where strongly held views existed.

If he was refused permission to abstain, Mr Anderton said it was obviously difficult to see him supporting asset sales legislation. His principles against privatisation remained firm, he said. But he would not prejudice the caucus consideration of his arguments.

Yesterday’s resolution had been “perfectly reasonable.”

However, while the rules of the caucus were binding on all members under all reasonable circumstances, it was ultimately the over-all Labour Party rules which governed behaviour, he

said. His argument against the asset sales was that some contradict Labour Party policy. While this did not mean the right of the party to insist daily on what should occur, the thrust of policy should be maintained. Mr Lange said yesterday that the caucus would not as a matter of practice override party policy. That was why the sale of Postbank would be reviewed, as the election manifesto specifically excluded this from happening. But Mr Lange said the sale of the Bank of New Zealand was not precluded by the manifesto, in spite of a pledge not to sell efficient State assets. There were other qualifications, he said, about having the right to quit assets which no longer met social or economic objectives. “I think that was written by a very good lawyer, that part of the manifesto.” Mr Anderton maintained that this interpretation of the party’s policy was at the vejy least arguable.

However, he said he was pleased to have Postßank subject to a review by. the party hierarchy before any sale proceeded.