Editorial: Judges got Clarkson ruling right

Opinion

The idea that personal wealth should not confer an advantage on candidates for Parliament is fundamentally sound. But like most principles it can be taken too far. Winston Peters attempted to take it much too far in his High Court action against the man who took the Tauranga seat from him at the general election, National's Bob Clarkson.

Individual candidates are allowed to spend no more than $20,000 on their campaign in the electorate. Mr Peters argued that Mr Clarkson had spent more by counting some services supplied at no cost to the candidate. Among them was a telephone "push-poll", a sign on a van and the signage on Mr Clarkson's campaign headquarters, the lease of which allowed him to use the exterior.

The Electoral Act makes it clear that the spending restriction includes the market value of any materials provided to the candidate free or at a discount. The three judges who heard Mr Peters' case decided that only actual materials such as timber and paint are covered by the act, not the notional value of advertising space on a building or vehicle. Counting that sort of material, the court estimated Mr Clarkson's spending to be much more than he declared but within the $20,000 limit.

Mr Peters is not the only person displeased by the decision. Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said it proved "a truck can be driven through the current constraints" and he expected the justice and electoral select committee of Parliament would look hard at the judgment when it reviewed the election. "It is reasonably clear that aspects of what is allowable spending will have to be revisited," he said.

The Labour Party is ever-ready to tighten controls on campaign spending, ever-conscious perhaps that Labour candidates are less likely to own or lease property in highly visible locations, or have supporters who can provide commercial services at little or no cost. But Labour probably over-estimates the impact of these things, and under-estimates the ability of the voters to make allowance for it.

What, in any case, is wrong with a candidate making use of certain advantages? Nobody wants to restrict the voluntary labour that supporters are allowed to supply to an electorate candidate, though some parties might be naturally better endowed than others with politically dedicated workers. The energy and enthusiasm of supporters ought to be a factor in election campaigns, as should their donations of whatever they can offer.

It would be a sad day that the legal restrictions went beyond what candidates purchased for their campaign and included anything of value they or their local party members possessed.

The High Court has concluded that the Electoral Act through several revisions has always taken care to define what constitutes a restricted electoral expense so that the net is not cast discouragingly wide.

If candidates were obliged to include every valuable non-cash contribution in their spending declaration, they would dare not accept such donations for fear of miscalculating their market value, which is an imprecise measure in any case. Many legitimate commercial factors might explain a variation in prices for printing or the like.

The court has decided that some of the signs and newspaper advertising that Mr Clarkson did not regard as candidate promotions were assisting his campaign and ought to have been declared. But its estimate of their market value lets Mr Clarkson's election stand. The judges have taken a liberal approach to campaign restrictions and so they should. Parliament now should leave well enough alone.