[ad_1]
Catrin Owen / Things
The new leader of the Conservative Party, Leighton Bake, in front of the Auckland High Court.
This story was originally published on RNZ.co.nz and republished with permission.
A Superior Court judge rejected the New Conservative Party’s proposal to be included in the multi-party debate on TVNZ.
TVNZ has dismissed the party from its debate tomorrow night on the grounds that it is voting below its 3 percent threshold and has not been in parliament for the last two election cycles.
It is a decision that the leader of the New Conservative Party, Leighton Baker, has described as unfair and incompatible with a healthy democracy.
READ MORE:
* Election 2020: Advance NZ Says ‘Unreasonable’ To Be Banned From Newshub Debate
* Man spoken to by police after new Conservative member ‘assaulted’ in West Auckland
* Election 2020: TOP furious because TVNZ includes Advance NZ and Māori Party in debate
* Swastikas painted on New Conservative political campaign signs in West Auckland
* Seeking members and seeking support for new conservatives at Waimate
Baker was present to hear his party’s request for injunctive relief before Judge Woolford in Auckland High Court this morning.
Party lawyer Tiho Mijatov told the court that TVNZ had been wrong for various reasons; changing your criteria for participating in the debate, applying them incorrectly and not exercising discretion.
He acknowledged that the New Conservative Party would be included in the debate if the Colmar-Brunton poll on Thursday night had them above 3 percent, but said it was still in the general interest of justice to grant precautionary measures today.
“This is a case of little bias for TVNZ but a pretty big bias for the new conservatives.”
Mijatov said that the political party also had important interests on the ground in both the legalization and control of cannabis and the euthanasia referendums.
RNZ
The new leader of the Conservatives Leighton Baker.
He told the court that this was a unique and strong feature of the New Conservatives case, given that the last general election and the last confrontation in the referendum were in 2011 and the issue of the referendum was whether or not to retain the MMP.
“Here, we have a credible minority party with strong opposition on both social issues; they oppose both cannabis legalization and euthanasia referenda.
“That is a relevant factor because it is quite a unique feature of this election. Part of what will encourage the voters in this election may well be the position of the parties on this unique feature of this election,” Mijatov said.
He said that other parties that had scored lower than the New Conservative Party so far had been included in such debates and cited various email exchanges; suggesting unfair deals between the party and TVNZ in the run-up to its exclusion from Thursday’s event.
Mijatov said last week’s failed Advance Party attempt to be featured on Newshub Of the nation The Powerbroker debate was different from the New Conservative Party case.
“It was not a general debate of minor parties, but was launched specifically as what was marked as the possible makers of kings or queens … that was the niche and the very particular purpose of that debate.”
He said previous jurisprudence on minor parties contains “clear statements” about the importance of such parties being included in public debates.
As a final point, the attorney said that regardless of TVNZ’s discussion criteria, the television station was able to exercise genuine discretion when considering the inclusion of the parties in the discussions.
In response, TVNZ’s lawyer said the station had only sought to apply its own criteria for which the party simply did not qualify.
“TVNZ’s general wish in these debates is to be fair, reasonable and objective in deciding who will participate and who will not.
“There has really been no desire or reason to exclude the New Conservative Party or its leader.”
She told the court that it was not feasible for TVNZ to include all parties with interests in the general elections and, therefore, had developed and modified objective discussion criteria over time.
“As we said, the line has to be drawn somewhere, so if not where we have drawn it, where?”
Judge Woolford rejected the New Conservative Party’s request.
This story was originally published on RNZ.co.nz and republished with permission.
