Liz Gunn political party fails to overturn candidate registration blunder

Last-gasp court action by Liz Gunn’s New Zealand Loyal party to have more list candidates recognised for the general election after missing the registration deadline has failed.

The party needed to get the names of more than 30 to the Electoral Commission by noon on September 14.

The reason for party secretary Michele Smith missing the deadline was disputed but a lawyer for New Zealand Loyal, Matthew Hague, suggested in the High Court on Friday that the court could accept the list was submitted to the commission early, not late.

However, in a judgment released on Monday Justice Andru Isac put the blame on the New Zealand Loyal alone.

“Unfortunately, it seems that compilation and submission of the party list and bulk nomination schedule was left to the last minute. The onus is plainly on a registered party to ensure submission of statutory documentation in time.”

The New Zealand Loyal website currently shows two list candidates – its leader Liz Gunn and Peter Drew. Gunn became prominent as a former journalist turned conspiracy content creator.

The party’s policies included introducing a 1% transaction tax, wanting to limit the powers of government, remove race-based policies, stopping fluoridation of public water supplies, and end New Zealand’s participation in international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

In his judgment, Justice Isac also questioned criticisms of Electoral Commission’s staff in the submissions and evidence of New Zealand Loyal.

“It is difficult to reconcile those criticisms with [Michele Smith’s] apparently unprompted expression of appreciation on 14 September 2023 for the helpful assistance they provided her in relation to the nomination process.”

During last week’s hearing, Hague said, while hypothetical, if New Zealand Loyal’s share of the party vote involved filling more seats than the party list candidates currently recognised, the extra seats would be forfeit.

The Electoral Commission’s lawyer, Daniel Perkins, argued against “moving” the deadlines. The electoral process was complex and strict time frames must be observed, he said.