Opposition ‘outraged’ by validation proposal

Press, 9 December 1988, Page 4

Opposition ‘outraged’ by validation proposal

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Proposed validation for the disgraced former Labour Wairarapa member of Parliament, Mr Reg Boorman, has outraged the National Opposition. A recommendation for Mr Boorman’s rehabilitation is contained in the report of Parliament’s Electoral Law Committee in its report on the 1987 General Election. It is only a recommendation from the Labour majority and was described by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bolger, as “improper and wrong.” The majority recommendation was that the Government pass legislation that retrospectively validated all election expenses incurred above the

$5OOO statutory limit imposed on 1987 election candidates.

The majority also recommended that the legislation remove any penalties that had been imposed on any candidates (including Mr Boorman) for exceeding the limit.

That would remove the name of any candidate from the corrupt practices list and the replacement of their name on the appropriate electorate roll.

A special sitting of the Electoral Court in June this year overturned the electoral result in favour of Mr Boorman in the Wairarapa seat and awarded it to his National opponent, Mr Wyatt Creech. It also found Mr Boorman guilty of “corrupt practices.”

The chairman of the Electoral Law Committee, Mr R. T. Northey, said the Government majority on the select committee was not trying to overturn the Court ruling. But it had been recognised that candidates could not reasonably have expected the Court would rule that GST should have been included in the $5OOO limit a candidate, or have expected the Court’s rulings on dual or multiple advertising. “Therefore, we recommend that the slate be wiped for all 1987 candidates, no scapegoats remain, and the law be changed to be a lot more specific in future.” Mr Bolger said National would oppose that recommendation strongly. It was improper and wrong for

Parliament to be asked to exonerate retrospectively one of its own members.

An Opposition member of the committee, Mr Doug Graham (Remuera), said there could be no justification for the recommendation. The Court records themselves showed that Mr Boorman himself had accepted that his election expenses had exceeded the $5500 limit plus GST and that the Court had found his expenses to be “substantially greater.”

In such circumstances, the Court had been correct to find Mr Boorman guilty of “a corrupt practice,” Mr Graham said.

For the Government to consider legislation to overturn the decision of the Court was constitutionally outrageous.