Clarkson derides Peters' hat-trick of failures

Winston Peters (left) lost his Tauranga seat to Bob Clarkson in last year's election. nzherald.co.nz photo montage

Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson has said Winston Peters went on a "fishing trip" in his claims of campaign spending abuses.

Mr Clarkson was giving his reaction to a High Court decision which yesterday awarded him $40,000 costs for Peters' failed election petition.

"Winston's lost out on three occasions ... the election, the petition and now the costs ... I want to get on and be the MP for Tauranga and I want to forget about Winston Peters for a while," said Mr Clarkson.

Mr Peters, the New Zealand First leader and Foreign Affairs Minister, told the Bay of Plenty Times he would be seeing his lawyers this weekend "and that's the only comment I've got".

The three High Court judges Tony Randerson, Lowell Goddard and Graham Panckhurst, who presided over the Tauranga election petition hearing in late November, said the assessment of costs was straightforward and should follow normal court calculations.

Mr Clarkson's legal team calculated costs of $43,280 based on the High Court scale - though they did use a second lawyer at the hearing and the full costs totalled $87,000.

The judges ordered Mr Peters to pay $40,000 to Mr Clarkson.

Mr Peters claimed that Mr Clarkson spent nearly $100,000 during the final three months of his election campaign - five times more than the spending limit.

The judges ruled that Mr Clarkson's election expenses should have been $18,159 "which is not too far short of the maximum permitted sum of $20,000 in the three months prior to election day".

On the final day of the hearing, Mr Clarkson's team produced a provisional list of "non- disputed" expenses totalling $12,268.

In their decision on costs, released yesterday, the judges said the petition was not frivolous, vexatious or unnecessary, as claimed by Mr Clarkson's legal team.

The judges said the case involved some difficult questions about the interpretation of the Electoral Act which had not been the subject of any judicial determination since it was introduced in 1993.

One of the complex issues was whether election expenses should be increased to include notional sums reflecting the reasonable market value of items/or materials provided free of charge or below market value.

The extent may not have been correctly understood by political parties before "our determination", the judges said.

Mr Peters' lawyer, Brian Henry, argued that "the costs should lie where they fall".

- BAY OF PLENTY TIMES