2020 Election: Advance NZ Loses Court Order Against MediaWorks After Being Banned From Tv Debate

Advance NZ has lost its legal action after it was excluded from a televised “Powerbrokers debate” along with other minor parties.

Co-leaders Billy Te Kahika Jr and former National Party MP Jami-Lee Ross filed an urgent interlocutory request against MediaWorks in Auckland High Court on Tuesday.

They hoped to prevent MediaWorks from hosting and then broadcasting any discussions that
exclude one of them.

Billed as the Powerbrokers and “King and Queenmakers” debate, the event they were excluded from will be filmed tonight in Auckland but will air on Newshub Nation on Saturday morning.

It will include Act leader David Seymour, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, Maori Party co-leader John Tamihere and NZ First leader Winston Peters.

After hearing arguments from Advance NZ attorneys Honor Lanham and Jordan Grimmer and MediaWorks attorney Justin Graham yesterday, Judge Tracey Walker delivered her decision this afternoon.

On the basis of the limited evidence before her, she was satisfied that MediaWorks’ standard for the discussion “is not unreasonable or arbitrary.”

“You need to draw a line somewhere,” he said. “After all, there are 17 parties contesting the 2020 New Zealand election and resources, including available airtime, are limited.”

Judge Walker also said the media has no responsibility to justify its selection criteria.

“Nor is the essential question whether other criteria could better serve the public interest in the democratic process. That is not the aim of this judicial exercise. The courts will not interfere lightly in the editorial decisions of the media because an independent, divorced media political influence is vitally important for the functioning of a democracy. “

He said the media have editorial discretion to choose how to conduct their debates, just as they have a constitutional right to determine what is newsworthy.

If the court order was granted, he added, MediaWorks will also suffer some difficulties.

“The venue has been booked and paid for. If I granted the court order and Advance NZ was allowed to participate, there is a risk that the floodgates will open and a number of other minor parties will seek to be added to the debate.”

If the debate, which must have a live audience of 60 political scientists and commentators, could not continue, it would not be rescheduled, the court heard.

Judge Walker also took aim at Advance NZ’s argument that social media was an indicator of the popularity of the party and the chances that Te Kahika would win Te Tai Tokerau’s electorate.

“Confidence in the ‘popularity’ of social media is a forceful approach,” he said.

“First, the number of followers Advance NZ has on its social media accounts will not necessarily correlate with voters or votes. Second, it is impossible to determine whether those who interact with Advance NZ social media accounts are voters. eligible based in New Zealand.

“Third, social media can be susceptible to manipulation. Therefore, it is a poor indicator of electoral chances. Fourth, Lanham relies on social media statistics to argue that Te Kahika has a good chance of win a specific electorate seat. There is no evidence that people in your constituency are interacting with Advance NZ online content. “

Most telling, Judge Walker said, was Ross’s own evidence that the Act party has 21,000 followers on Facebook compared to Advance NZ’s 43,000 followers, yet the Act is scoring between 6 and 8 percent in compared to 1 percent for Advance NZ.

“This suggests that the popularity of social media does not necessarily correlate even with the success of surveys.”

While the Maori Party was not voting significantly differently from Advance NZ, Judge Walker said there are distinguishing features.

“Namely, the Maori party is competitive on various seats in the Maori electorate and has a track record of competing and winning those seats. Additionally, the Maori party has a track record in government, with former members serving as ministers in both the Labor arena. as in nationally run governments. They have some ‘form’ as coalition partners. “

After the trial, Ross and Te Kahika said in a statement that Judge Walker’s decision was “another example of how the media is stacking the deck against democracy.”

“We take this case because we believe in free speech,” Ross said.

“We also take this case because we know that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are calling for a new direction that is not the same Labor and national path.”

Ross said voters deserve to see Te Kahika take on politicians from the other parties entering Parliament.

“At the moment, there is a much higher probability that Advance NZ will enter Parliament than NZ First or the Maori Party,” he said.

“We will continue to campaign intensively and use the voice of the people on the ground and on social media. We will continue to avoid the media bias that continues to prevail in the elections.”

The party will participate in the TVNZ minor party debate because its criteria include current members of Parliament. Ross is Botany’s MP, but he has withdrawn from the race before the October 17 election.

Advance NZ has been questioned for apparently spreading conspiracy theories on the internet about Covid-19, the United Nations, and 5G, among others.

Thousands of party supporters have marched and demonstrated against Covid-19 restrictions and shutdowns this year.

Nor was it the first time that a minor party had gone to court for being excluded from a debate.

In three of the last five general elections in New Zealand, a minority or small party has challenged its exclusion from a televised leadership debate in court.

Before the 2017 election, The Opportunities Party (TOP) filed an urgent judicial review request after TVNZ excluded its founder and then leader Gareth Morgan from its debates.

The Superior Court ruled against TOP and Morgan.

However, in 2014, then-Conservative Party leader Colin Craig successfully challenged MediaWorks in court after not being invited to the minor party debate.

And in 2005, the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of United Future leader Peter Dunne and Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton joining the TV3 leadership debate.