KEY POINTS:
Police are investigating a Labour Party pamphlet in the first such probe under the new Electoral Finance Act.
But it is doing so after a referral from a member of the public, rather than from the Electoral Commission, into the pamphlet entitled "We're Making a Difference for Everyone"
National has been pursuing the matter legally and went to court yesterday, trying to get the High Court to order that the commission refer it to the police. But the police have been investigating it all along.
The Electoral Commission found in April that the pamphlet breached the act because it was an election advertisement but did not have a promoter statement on it from its financial agent.
The commission did not refer it to the police, saying it was the first breach of a new act and it was best used as an educational reminder to all parties.
Inspector Bill Peoples of police national headquarters confirmed in a court affidavit that staff had received a complaint but would not name the complainant.
The investigation has been going for about two months, according to a police spokesman, and is about to be concluded, possibly as soon as next week.
National, represented by lawyer Peter Kiely, yesterday argued that the commission had no discretion under the act not to refer any breach of it to the police and that the discretion lay with the police.
The commission, represented by Crown Law counsel Peter Gunn, argued that the law gave the commission discretion to not refer matters to the police that it regards as so "inconsequential" that there is nopublic interest in doing so.
Electoral Commission chief executive Helena Catt disclosed in her affidavit that she was contacted by the police on April 24 about the pamphlet and that the police visited the commission.
The case was heard in the High Court at Wellington and Justice Alan McKenzie reserved his decision.
While much of National's case has been rendered irrelevant by the disclosure that the police have already been investigating it, the court could provide clarity on what should be regarded as "inconsequential" in future commission decisions.
The commission's original finding against the leaflet was the result of a referral to it by the Herald.
It was among several items that had been the subject of discussion in Parliament as to whether or not they were election ads under the new definition under the new act.
The Herald did not refer the matter to the police.
