Advertisement

Plain politics, not safety fears, are root of opposition calls delay to New Zealand election

<span>Photograph: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images</span>
Photograph: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

The reintroduction of lockdowns as a result of evidence of community transmission of Covid-19 in Auckland has New Zealand electoral politics in a bit of a tizz. The general election is due in only 38 days, overseas voting commences on 2 September and advance voting is scheduled to open three days later. On learning of the move to higher alert levels, most parties announced they were suspending their election campaigning, at least until midnight Friday or until the extent of the community transmission is understood.

With luck, the outbreak will be able to be quickly contained, and election campaigning can resume. But this cannot be taken for granted, and already there is speculation about whether the 19 September general election will have to be deferred. On Wednesday, National leader Judith Collins called on Jacinda Ardern move the vote to November on the grounds that it would not be possible to have a fair and free election in September. She said that with Auckland in level 3 lockdown and the rest of the country at level 2, it was unsustainable to expect a fair campaign. She said New Zealanders deserved better than to wonder if they can vote on election day.

Collins’ argument is a bit of a red herring. There is no guarantee that it will be any easier for parties to campaign in November, or even into next year until there is a vaccine. At this stage the only question the prime minister should be contemplating is whether in 38 days it will be too unsafe to hold an election under level 2. It is public safety, not parties’ ability to campaign, that should determine this call.

It is encouraging to note that the electoral commission has already had a range of measures in place to help keep voters safe if voting amid level 2 restrictions, including using hand sanitiser on the way in and out of voting places, managing queues and allowing more room for physical distancing, increasing the size and number of voting places and encouraging voters to bring their own pen to mark ballots. They have additional plans to deliver ballots to small clusters of up to 500 voters affected by local alert levels 3 or 4, to a maximum of 5,000 voters nationwide, using takeaway voting.

Even if the whole country has to move to levels 3 or 4, and it becomes impossible for voters to leave their houses, the chief electoral officer has emergency powers to delay voting by up to seven days at a time until it is safer.

If the country follows the public health control measures set for each level, as did back in March, April and May, there is no reason to believe we won’t be back in level 2 or even level 1 by election day.

But public safety is not the real reason National wants a delay. For the opposition, a longer election campaign gives Collins and her team more chances to attack the government and to organise themselves. The fact that National entered this election campaign period in a shambolic state, however, with two leadership changes in eight weeks, is not Ardern’s responsibility to resolve by extending the campaign and deferring the election date.

Minor parties will want an extended campaign period for different reasons. They rely on the campaign for increased media exposure and more access to voters. If campaigning in level 3 stymies their ability to move around, level 2 would also restrict public gatherings of more than 100 and politicians’ ability to hand-shake voters. A later election would give them more time to move around the country and connect with voters in person which is something that can best be achieved in Level 1.

Related: 'I'm going nowhere but up': Winston Peters on populism, politics and the polls

Physical distancing restrictions will not hamper the major parties as much, as they have more access to voters through the mainstream media. However, their campaigns also depend a lot on the photos and videos they take of their leaders meeting and greeting ordinary people, business owners and workers on the campaign trail. Much of their messaging strategy relies on voters thinking of them as being in touch with ordinary people. The leaders would still be able to take part in the all-important televised leader debates, however. They just might have to do so without a live audience. And there’s a plus side. If voters aren’t able to go out and socialise, they may end up watching the debates instead so the reach of this format could be even greater than normal.

It is not parties’ inability to campaign that is really at the heart of the issue of deferral. Or public safety. It is the daily “free” media access that Ardern and her Covid-19 team receive as they try to keep New Zealanders safe. Back in late May, the government’s handling of the crisis had a positive halo effect on their public opinion poll numbers. The mid-May Colmar Brunton poll, which this year seems to align closest with internal party polling, had Labour on 59% support and National on 29% support, so the latterwill be seeking to minimise Ardern’s built-in advantage.

There is no metric to determine what makes an election campaign “fair” other than free access to information and free access for voters to the polling booth. With neither of these being prevented, there is currently no need to change the election date.

Claire Robinson is professor of communication design and pro vice-chancellor at Massey University college of creative arts.