Peters wins some but falls a bit short

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters lost his claim of overspending against his Tauranga nemesis, National MP Bob Clarkson, but he did not lose every aspect of the case.

He lost some arguments and he won some, but he did not win enough to push Mr Clarkson over the $20,000 spending limit in the Electoral Act and into a subsequent byelection.

Mr Peters fell short by $1840.21 - but even then there would not necessarily have been a byelection.

The court's findings on various points of expenditure meant they found Mr Clarkson had spent almost twice as much as he had declared spending.

But the three High court judges concluded: "There is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have prevailed at the election in Tauranga."

There will be no byelection.

Mr Peters remains a list MP and Mr Clarkson remains the MP for Tauranga after a decision that will be pored over by party officials and MPs considering changes to the Electoral Act before the 2008 election.

The act says a candidate may spend no more than $20,000 in the three months before a general election on expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate for election activity.

It includes the reasonable market value of any materials for election activity given to the candidate or which are provided to the candidate free or at a discount.

Not included in the election expenses are travel, the conduct of surveys or opinion polls, the labour of any person provided free of charge or replacement material for damaged advertising.

Some of the key findings of the court were:

* Push polling campaign in support of Mr Clarkson.

The judges agreed with Mr Peters that the campaign amounted to advertising but because it had been undertaken by volunteers at no cost, no expense was incurred.

"Those involved in the telephone campaign simply used their own telephones upon which they would have been incurring the cost of the line rental in any event."

* Sign promoting Mr Clarkson and the National Party on a mobile van.

The court rejected Mr Peters' claims that it was a mobile billboard because first, it was exempted as a means of travel and second, although signwriting was accepted as advertising, "the cost of the use of space on the side panels of the vehicle cannot be regarded as a 'material' for the purposes of the definition of election expenses".

* Signage on Mr Clarkson's headquarters promoting himself and the National Party.

The court agreed with Mr Clarkson that because the lease of the premises permitted the use of wall space and the lease payment did not constitute an election expense. There should be no allowance for the notional cost of the wall advertising in the candidate's expenses, only the materials used.

* Three-page feature in the Bay of Plenty Times.

The feature, published on July 20, comprised three articles, one about the election, and a series of advertisements said to celebrate the completion of two commercial developments Mr Clarkson had been involved in.

The paper said it was its idea, not Mr Clarkson's, and it had only one discussion with him.

Although the newspaper's general manager, Mr R. A. Hall, said it was never meant to have a link with the September 17 poll, the court found Mr Clarkson had authorised publication of material contained in the article relating to the election.

"We find further that, at least to the extent of the material contained in the article, it does constitute advertising and is an election activity" under the act.

The court decided to treat a proportion of the advertising - and arrived at 25 per cent - as the amount that should be treated as an election expense: $1282.50.