Audrey Young: Small parties rely on underdog factor

The small parties are gambling that the heat around the election spending debacle has been substantially hosed down by Labour's agreement to repay unlawful expenditure.

They are gambling that the public opprobrium was linked to Labour's pledge card and not to themselves.

The risk is that they look as if they are putting themselves above the law.

But they may hold out paying for as long as they can to test public opinion further.

Small parties have an in-built underdog factor. This is inherent in the Greens and one which accomplished politicians such as New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and United Future leader Peter Dunne can easily invoke.

Mr Dunne managed to sound as if he was making a huge sacrifice on Wednesday when he offered to repay $5000, knowing his liability would be closer to $70,000.

New Zealand First's decision to contemplate a legal challenge to its $158,000 will drag the matter out, possibly to the next election.

The Greens and United Future look set to coat-tail on its action. It's not hard to see why.

United Future's bill divided by its three MPs amounts to about $24,000 apiece. The Greens, who say they will pay anything "ultimately" found to be outside the law, would each have a bill of about $14,500.

New Zealand First says it has the money already and will put it in trust if it takes a legal challenge.

But any challenge would likely be quite specific to New Zealand First's time, place and circumstance.

Not all judgments can tidily apply to all similar cases.

Instead of closure, the issue could be reopened at a far more unfortunate time than two years away from the next election.

The small parties will take the gamble that the public feels a certain sympathy for them rather than treating them as if they think themselves above the law.

In the matter of law, they are being assisted by Prime Minister Helen Clark and Attorney-General Michael Cullen.

Their attempts to subvert the Auditor-General's report yesterday through continued challenging of the his findings and with duelling legal opinions undermines the momentary advantage Labour gave itself in deciding to pay it back.

Jack Hodder is a fine lawyer and has written a cogent opinion disagreeing with the former Solicitor-General and now Court of Appeal judge Terence Arnold, cited in the Auditor-General's report.

But as former Act leader Richard Prebble stated last night, he is also what is called a "hired gun".

Labour's pledge card was found to have been dodgy by the Chief Electoral Officer (for its lack of authorisation), the Electoral Commission (because its cost was not declared), and by the Auditor- General (for the source of its funding), which was backed by the Solicitor-General.

A little more acknowledgment that these disinterested high-ranking officers might have a point would go a long way.

The smaller parties - with less arrogance than Labour has displayed - might win public sympathy and some forgiveness because of the heavy financial burden ahead of them.