Winston Peters threatens court bid

Winston Peters

Winston Peters will need to show that Bob Clarkson flouted election spending rules and by a significant amount if he loses Tauranga and challenges the result through an election petition.

And if he can do this, it could lead to a full-scale redrawing of the number of MPs each party has in Parliament.

Mr Peters, the New Zealand First leader, has hinted he might take a High Court petition alleging overspending against National's candidate Mr Clarkson if he fails to win the seat he has held since 1984.

With NZ First hovering at or below the 5 per cent threshold of the party vote, retaining Tauranga is critical to his party's future in Parliament, but polls show he is trailing Mr Clarkson.

An investigation into Mr Clarkson's election spending is already being conducted by Chief Electoral Officer David Henry, after questions about an advertising feature and billboards were put to him by the Herald on Sunday newspaper.

Candidates are allowed to spend only $20,000 on election expenses, including advertising, in the three months before an election.

If Mr Henry finds there is a serious problem, he would refer the matter to police and Mr Clarkson could be prosecuted for a corrupt practice. If found guilty, he would lose the seat and a by-election would be held.

But Mr Clarkson could also be the subject of an election petition, also for corrupt practices.

Should that be successful, there would not be a byelection and the Electoral Act says three High Court judges would determine the winner of the seat, likely to be Mr Peters.

Victoria University law lecturer Caroline Morris said if NZ First had fallen below 5 per cent in the election, and Mr Peters regained Tauranga through a petition, then his party would also be entitled to more MPs according to how much of the party vote it had won.

That would require a redrawing of all parties' representation in Parliament.

Mr Peters was involved in the only other election petition taken in New Zealand based on overspending, supporting former National Party Deputy Prime Minister Wyatt Creech's efforts to get elected in Wairarapa.

That 1988 petition, which cost just under $100,000, saw the then Electoral Court rule that Labour's Reg Boorman had broken spending rules, and declare Mr Creech elected.

But the court made significant decisions about overspending, which would apply in a Tauranga petition.

It found the amount overspent by Mr Boorman was substantially greater than the $5000 then allowed and the about $5600 conceded by Labour, although it did not quantify it. Mr Creech's team had argued Mr Boorman had spent almost $30,000.

The court said the spending limits could not be considered an offence of "absolute liability", which means there is some discretion around prosecution and petition decisions.

So had Mr Boorman been able to argue he had innocently or unknowingly exceeded spending constraints, the petition may have failed.