Election 2020: New conservative fails in the Supreme Court to defend the inclusion of the TVNZ debate

The New Conservative Party has failed to convince a judge that it should be included in a TVNZ debate.

Lawyers for the political party sought an urgent injunction in Auckland High Court in an attempt to force the network to include them in its multi-party debate tomorrow night.

The effort was ruled out today by Judge Mark Woolford.

The legal action was another attempt by a small party to use the court to be included in a televised debate, which has had varying degrees of success in the past and has become expected ahead of the New Zealand elections.

TVNZ’s inclusion criteria require parties to reach 3 percent in a poll in the six months prior to the debate or to occupy a seat in Parliament.

The most recent 1 News Colmar Brunton poll placed New Conservative at 1%.

The court heard today whether the new conservative reaches the 3 percent threshold, or rounded 2.5 percent, in a new poll tomorrow, they would be included in the debate.

Despite the poll of about 1 percent, Advance NZ will be included because its co-leader Jami-Lee Ross, a former national member, is MP for Botany.

TVNZ relaxed its criteria to allow the inclusion of the Maori Party after admitting that it did not adequately consider parties that only compete for seats in the Maori electorate.

New Conservative lawyer Tiho Mijatov argued today that his client was a “serious and credible minority party” and was ahead of the Maori and Advance NZ parties in the polls.

He said this month’s election was unique in that New Zealanders will also vote on two important social issues, which are the referendums on cannabis and euthanasia.

New Conservative opposes both the legalization of recreational cannabis use and the End of Life Choice Act.

Mijatov said that the party people vote for can be influenced by their opinions on one or both referendums.

“All New Conservative is looking for is for its leader to rise up and address the nation,” Mijatov said.

TVNZ attorney Briony Davies said the broadcaster’s overall desire was to be fair, reasonable and objective.

He had no reason to exclude the New Conservative Party and its leader from participating.

“The applicant just doesn’t qualify,” Davies said.

He also said that TVNZ does not agree that the party’s views on the referendums are relevant.

“That would be a different debate,” he said.

After the nearly two hour hearing, Judge Woolford quickly dismissed New Conservative’s request and said he would pursue their reasons.

After watching the proceedings, new Conservative leader Leighton Baker told reporters outside that the foray into the courtroom “was worth it.”

“We are obviously disappointed,” he said. “As the fifth highest electoral party, we would love to be in the debate.”

Baker said yesterday that the 3 percent threshold was “a major hurdle” for smaller parties “that lack business or taxpayer funding.”

He also blamed the media for “failing to do their duty” and providing information on candidates, parties and policies.

“Journalists used to be very proud of their role in investigating and transmitting the truth. It is disheartening to see them now as manipulators and propagandists,” Baker said.

Yet despite its criticism, New Conservative has received media coverage, including in the Herald’s 24-page election special this week and Baker was interviewed for the Herald’s Leaders Unplugged series.

Ahead of the 2017 election, Baker also said his party’s exclusion from an Auckland University debate was “a little bit unfair” after he was originally invited.

However, he then decided not to take legal action and said: “This is not how we do it.”

Today he said that circumstances had changed since 2017 and he wanted the party to have every opportunity to be included in tomorrow’s TVNZ debate.

Just last week, the Supreme Court ruled on another minor party effort trying to join in a televised debate.

Judge Tracey Walker dismissed Advance NZ’s injunction against MediaWorks after it was excluded from Newshub Nation’s “power brokers debate.”

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

He also said that the media have no responsibility to justify their selection criteria and have editorial discretion to choose how to conduct their debates and determine what is newsworthy.

“The courts will not lightly interfere with the editorial decisions of the media because an independent media, divorced from political influence, is of vital importance to the functioning of democracy.” Judge Walker said.

Following the decision, Advance NZ co-leaders Billy Te Kahika Jr and Ross said: “We will continue to circumvent the media bias that continues to prevail in elections.”

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.