Bob Clarkson leaves Parliament after hearing of his vindication. Picture / Mark Mitchell
Spending rules in the Electoral Act may be tightened after New Zealand First leader Winston Peters failed in his High Court challenge to unseat National's new Tauranga MP, Bob Clarkson, the Government indicated yesterday.
Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said it was clear that a truck could be driven through
the current law.
"Clearly, more money was spent than the limit but it didn't necessarily qualify as spending," he told the Herald.
Dr Cullen said he was not commenting on the merits of Mr Peters' case or of the judgment, but said he expected that the justice and electoral select committee would want to look at the issue in its standard review of the 2005 election.
"It is reasonably clear that the aspects of what is allowable spending under the Electoral Act will have to be revisited because the thrust of the judgment is such that effectively a truck can be driven through the current constraints."
Mr Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, alleged in an electoral petition heard in the High Court at Tauranga that Mr Clarkson, a wealthy Tauranga businessman, had spent at least $80,000 - well above the $20,000 limit for electorate candidates.
Mr Clarkson claimed he had spent $10,022.
The court, comprising three High Court judges, agreed with some of the claims Mr Peters made about what should be included as election expenses.
It found Mr Clarkson had spent $18,158.79 - more than he claimed - but that he was within the limit.
Even if Mr Clarkson had overspent, he would not have lost his seat and forced a byelection under the terms of the petition unless the court had been satisfied that Mr Clarkson knowingly overspent.
The finding, by chief High Court judge Justice Tony Randerson and Justices Lowell Goddard and Graham Panckhurst, was read out in Parliament yesterday by Speaker Margaret Wilson.
Mr Clarkson later expressed his pleasure at the ruling.
"I stand tall. I'm truthful, I'm honest, my morals are good and they won't be questioned."
Mr Peters was clearly disappointed in the decision and indicated he also wants the law clarified.
He said he would be talking to his lawyers.
