Applying the Dunne Precedent

Destiny NZ is already seeking to apply the Dunne precedent over its exclusion from a TVNZ Marae debate. While I don't like Destiny, the fact is that they are standing for election, and they deserve a fair go just as any other candidate does. I'd prefer that TVNZ did this out of its public duty (and it has one not just under the Broadcasting Act, but also under its Charter), but Destiny is perfectly entitled to go to court and have it decision reviewed for reasonableness etc.

I'm not familiar with the polling in Tamaki Makaurau or TVNz's precise reason for exclusion, so I can't really comment on whether their decision is in fact reasonable. But there are some obvious general principles which could be applied. In the case of electorate candidates, I think it is perfectly reasonable where an electorate contest is clearly a two-horse race to limit the debate to the two major candidates. But where the contest is closer, the net should be cast wider. In party contests, the net should be cast as wide as practicable, with an effort not to treat like parties unequally (that was what got TV 3 - ACT and United Future were polling so close, and yet one was excluded while the other was not - and if anything the relevant criteria were in United's favour). It's perfectly possible to have narrower debates - Brash vs Clark, parties getting over 5%, parties contesting the Maori seats - provided the criteria is clear and makes a reasonable distinction between parties. Again, that was what fouled up TV 3 - while they reportedly offered Dunne and Anderton alternative airtime, it wouldn't be next to their opponents, so no direct comparison could be made. The overwhelming emphasis should be on fairness and inclusion - its the voters who are supposed to decide who gets elected, not the media.