Editorial: Slurs show Peters is on the ropes

Opinion

The most interesting thing about the muck thrown by Winston Peters at the National candidate for Tauranga is that it tells us Mr Peters is truly in danger of losing his seat. Until the past two days many a seasoned political observer would have taken Bob Clarkson's confidence with a grain of salt. He is by no means the first National candidate to fancy his chances of unseating the man who formed a rival conservative party. And Mr Clarkson is not the first National candidate to be locally well-regarded. Yet all National's predictions for its previous challengers have come to nothing. Tauranga seemed to like electing an inveterate attention-seeker.

Any thought that the same result is in store this Saturday has been banished by Mr Peters' extraordinary tactics of the past few days. He told a Grey Power meeting in Tauranga that Mr Clarkson had been investigated by Inland Revenue in 1989 and had been the subject of a sexual harassment accusation by a former employee three years ago. Mr Clarkson dealt with both smears swiftly. He pointed out that it was common for business to be subject to a tax investigation and that as a result of it he had paid an extra $30,000, but had paid no penalty tax nor been charged with a tax offence.

As for the sexual harassment suggestion, he had dealt with it publicly at the time. He had taken the letter from the woman's lawyer straight to the Bay of Plenty Times newspaper. The accusation rested on nothing more than an anatomical reference, "I'll bet my left testicle ... ", that was overheard by the complainant. Mr Clarkson says the woman's legal action followed her dismissal for use of foul language. "There was no case. She withdrew after about three months. Definitely no sexual harassment money [was paid] whatsoever." The woman, Viv D'Or, who was in Australia on holiday, returned to New Zealand yesterday. She says she never made a harassment claim but had a long-running dispute to be paid $65,000 she believed due to her.

If Mr Peters is as desperate as he sounds, he must also fear that New Zealand First's nationwide vote will not rescue him. Should he lose Tauranga and NZ First does not attract at least 5 per cent of the vote nationwide, he and his party are out of Parliament. The polls still show the party above the threshold but dropping fast. Ironically that may have much to do with his indication that NZ First will tacitly support the party first past the post. Erstwhile voters for minor parties must now ensure their preferred main party finishes ahead.

If the survival of Mr Peters and his party depend entirely on Tauranga, we may hear more about a third accusation he has levelled at his National challenger. He claims the Clarkson campaign may have already exceeded the permitted limit on spending. Should he challenge an adverse result in Tauranga, and NZ First stands to collect several seats on the outcome, the election result might have to await the case. Mr Peters, it should be remembered, began his parliamentary career by winning a legal challenge to an election result in a South Auckland seat.

He can never be counted out. But if this is the end, it will be a characteristic one. He has been adroit at making the most threadbare insinuations sound like a scandal. In this instance he will be counting on enough voters to lend only half an ear to his claims, just enough to gain the impression that something is wrong with his rival, though they are not sure what. He seems be going out with a last flourish of the dubious art of character assassination.