Sydenham call for Anderton decision

Press, 27 February 1989, Page 10

Sydenham call for Anderton decision

By

GLEN PERKINSON

Sydenham Labour Party officials will this week demand the release of the party council’s decision on the banning from the caucus last year of the local member -of Parliament, Mr Jim Anderton.

The Sydenham Labour Electorate Committee last evening called for the party’s general secretary, Mr Tony Timms, to release the decision immediately. The committee will then distribute 14,000 letters in the electorate explaining why Mr Anderton was allowed back into caucus.

Neither Mr Timms, the party president, Ms Ruth Dyson nor Mr Anderton have commented on the decision. But it is believed the council found favour with Mr Anderton’s argument

that the Government could not expel him from the caucus after abstaining from voting over the sale of the Bank of New Zealand.

Last evening after the L.E.C. meeting Mr Anderton was still refusing to comment on the decision, but expressed anger at the party’s refusal to announce it. ' He said it was ludicrous that his electorate was being kept in the dark over his expulsion and whether the Government move was right or wrong. He said that parts of the decision were being “leaked all over the place” and a picture was being drawn up by people that would “not be the whole truth.” “And I have been placed in an intolerable position,” he said. The L.E.C. decided to approach Mr Timms because “it believes the

electorate has every right to know about the decision because it was over an issue I was prepared to risk my membership of the party for.”

Mr Anderton said he had done “nothing irresponsible” over the bank vote.

He said he was angry over the suppression of the decision considering “the very public way I was removed from caucus.”

“I am being denied natural justice — I was expelled publically so it is only fair the reasons for my reinstatement should be made equally public.”

Mr Anderton took his case to the party council almost a fortnight ago.

He said its decision could have uncomfortable repercussions for political parties whose members opposed their party’s stance rather than being seen to public abide by it.