It is a case of robbing Peters to pay Paula. And if you are the long-suffering taxpayer it hardly seems fair.

There is a convention in Parliament that if Ministers get into a spot of bother, if they're sued in the line of duty, then the taxpayer will pick up the legal tab.

They put up a case to Cabinet and in their executive wisdom, they can decide to foot the bill. In this case, Paula Bennett and Anne Tolley have been successful in claiming twenty grand that they've ruined so far in the case involving Winston Peters.

The New Zealand First leader's claiming $1.8 million in damages after details of his pension overpayment were leaked to the media during the final stages of the election campaign. Bill English and Steven Joyce have also been named in the action along with the former PM's chief of staff.

Tolley and Bennett were given the good oil on Peters under the "no surprises" policy where public servants warn politicians of sensitive issues that might end up in the public arena. Even Bill English said his ministers shouldn't have been told.

Peters claims he had no knowledge he was being overpaid and when it was discovered he immediately paid it back.

The leaked information was aimed at damaging his chances in the election, it was dirty politics. It was a breach of privacy and that's why the fiercely private Peters is pursuing it through the court.

National was in the final weeks of the campaign trying to wipe the spoiler party off the political map and made no secret of it.

The legal action is awaiting a court date, so far it's been a process of discovery, where Peters lawyers have been on a discovery mission, or a fishing expedition, and over and above his legal bills it's cost Peters ten grand. He's not claiming his costs from the public purse.

Whether Peters own Cabinet colleagues sign off on more legal expenses for his opponents as the case progress is still to be considered, but given they've already coughed up, it's highly likely.

And it begs the question: What happens if the court decides on the balance of probabilities that the damaging material was in fact leaked and exploited by the politicians, will they have to pay the money back? Fat chance.

The Nat's current leader Simon Bridges reckons the public will see the fairness in the legal expenses being paid, given when people act as Ministers they are subjected to litigious risk that they shouldn't be expected to pay for.

The question here is whether the ministers were, during an election campaign, acting as ministers which will, of course, be for the court to decide.Pe