OPINIONPoliticsAugust 16, 2020

Will the 2020 election be delayed, and if so till when?

Editor-at-large

Winston Peters has demanded it be bumped back from September 19. Is that likely, and when might the new day be? Plus: Peters’ letter to Jacinda Ardern in full

On the eighth day of 2020 the Spinoff Election Prediction Lab Committee (“Sepulchre”) predicted correctly that the election would be held on September 19.

Recent events and conjecture have promoted the committee to hastily reconvene via mind palace to reconsider whether the election will or will not be delayed.

The date of the election is the prerogative of the prime minister, and she can in effect unilaterally shift the election date to as late as November 21.

Judith Collins and the National Party have called for a delay to the election date, going so far as to suggest it be postponed until next year. That would require parliament to vote by a 75% super majority.

This afternoon Winston Peters and NZ First have also publicly called for a delay, releasing a letter sent to Ardern last Friday – the full text of the press release and letter is below.

Do Collins and Peters have a point? The Electoral Commission is geared up for an election under Covid restrictions, but there are nevertheless very reasonable concerns around what a level two election might mean for campaigning and for turnout. Remember that domestic voting as it stands opens as soon as September 5, and last time around half of us voted in the advance polling fortnight.

Not only do Collins and Peters have a point, they also have a majority of MPs in the house. As mentioned, the election date is the decision of the prime minister – see for example slurred snap election revelations of the past – but would she really wish to overrule the implicit majority of the House of Representatives?

At the end of his release this afternoon, Peters said this: “We are releasing our letter of August 14 for the sake of transparency, and because we believe the governor general of New Zealand needs to know that the majority in the House of Representatives favours an election delay.”

It’s a very pointed thing to say. If he wants to go nuclear, Peters can withdraw confidence. At an impromptu press conference this afternoon he said she continued to enjoy the confidence of his MPs, but he didn’t say what he’d do if the prime minister didn’t push the date back. Were Peters to push that particular button and in the absence of the house sitting, he’d presumably express if in writing to the governor general. As I understand it, she would then see if anyone else had sufficient numbers to form an alternative government; failing that and with no prospect of a government being formed, she’d go ahead and decide on an election date herself.

Peters also said in the letter he has spoken to the prime minister. Perhaps he was unhappy with her response, sensing she was disinclined to change the date. Perhaps she just told him it was her decision and he should shove off and tell some more stuff he heard from journalist friends to Australian television. Perhaps he reckoned the date was going to move and just wanted to get some credit for it: It’s the Winston wot won it.

The likelihood is that Ardern would have pushed back the date irrespective of Peters’ performance this afternoon. It’s a hard decision to make when you’re commanding well over 50% in the polls, to be sure. But given her leadership is considerably forged in being conciliatory and, well, kind, the better option is to take the magnanimous high ground.

And if so, when? Far enough that it provides a little contingency for going down the alert level rungs. Not so far ahead that the momentum of the campaign under way already dissipates and we all have to start all over again.

In January, the committee predicted the final three contenders for the election date as September 12, September 19, and October 17. The reasons included the timing of summits (no longer applicable), All Black tests (no longer applicable) and school holidays (still probably applicable). They mostly hold, however.

And so and thus and therefore, the prediction is that tomorrow morning at 10am the prime minister will announce the election date will be nudged four weeks down the track, to October 17.

Winston Peters’ press release and letter to the prime minister

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters today called for a delay to the election as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak.

“Since Monday evening, August 10, we have said that our health response must come first and politics second. That remains our view as the case numbers rise each day.

“We know we don’t have a unique strain of the virus, and that the Americol connection does not exist, as product from that source has not been imported into the country for months, so the border remains the likely source of the outbreak.

“More’s the point, there is now no ability to conduct a free and fair election if the Prime Minister decides to hold the General Election on September 19,” stated Mr Peters.

“In 1984, when Robert Muldoon called a snap election, parties still had 29 days to campaign. In 2002, when Helen Clark went to the polls early, parties had 44 days.

“If September 19 is confirmed political parties will have only six days to campaign before overseas voting begins on September 2 and nine days before advance voting begins.*

“In neither earlier case (1984 and 2002) was pressure being placed on special voting processes, as would be the case in 2020. Special voting was extremely rare in those two earlier elections (with 90 percent of votes cast on Election Day in 2002), with voters having to qualify for a special vote.

“There is no comparison between special voting then as opposed to now, where it is a commonplace alternative to voting on Election Day. Indeed, only 44 percent of votes at the 2017 General Election were cast on Election Day.

“We therefore have real concerns about the state of preparedness of the Electoral Commission and our postal service to process in a timely fashion an unprecedented deluge of special votes.

“Voters are sovereign and when and what day they vote must be their choice, not the government’s. Any proposed staggering of their vote in the election across several weeks is a weakening of and serious interference in our democracy. Voters would be asked by government to exercise their franchise with different levels of information from each other and that is unacceptable.

“This government decided to enable for the first time same Election Day registration and voting in an attempt to boost turnout. Any decision that compromises the turnout, as holding the election on September 19 would, undermines that goal as well.

“Operating the election at Alert Level 2 in Auckland raises concerns about the effect on turnout. The psychology of Auckland voters, as well as the wider voting community, is highly likely to lead to a reduced turnout given legitimately held health fears; by how much is the real concern.

“Voters need to be able to hear from all political parties about their Covid response and other policies. That is fair. But until Auckland’s alert level comes down the playing field is hopelessly compromised, said Mr Peters.

“New Zealand First wrote to the Prime Minister on August 14 to convey our concerns. We did so sadly because it is so obviously apparent that the Covid outbreak is compromising our ability to hold a free and fair election on September 19.

“Since then we have had a conversation with the Prime Minister.

“New Zealand First believes we risk undermining the legitimacy of the election result, creating an awful precedent which could be abused by the Prime Minister’s successors.

“People will be driven to the conclusion, in the absence of any empirical evidence to the contrary, that the election date choice is being forced from a minority position to achieve a certain outcome.

“This is a most regrettable yet avoidable situation. We are here as Members of Parliament first and foremost, not just as members of political parties.

“We are releasing our letter of August 14 for the sake of transparency, and because we believe the Governor General of New Zealand needs to know that the majority in the House of Representatives favours an election delay.”

Dear Prime Minister

‘Matters for Decision’

We are writing to you to express New Zealand First’s strong view that as a result of the reintroduction of Covid-19 into our community it is neither fair nor desirable to hold the General Election on September 19.

Community transmission in Auckland has already massively disrupted electioneering, with all political parties suspending their campaigns. Given uncertainty around when Auckland will be able to move to alert level 2 – at the earliest a decision will be made on Friday August 21 or, alternatively, Wednesday 26 August – the ability for parties to campaign for a September 19 election is already fatally compromised.

The concept of holding a ‘free and fair’ election is directly related to the public’s perceptions of political legitimacy, legitimacy of the outcome, as well as trust and confidence in the integrity of the General Election, the campaigns that precede it, as well as deliverability.

Given overseas voting begins on September 2 and advance voting begins on September 5, any delay in moving to Alert Level 2 in Auckland will undermine the legitimacy of a September 19 election. It will be neither free nor fair. The psychology of Auckland voters, as well the wider voting community, is highly likely to lead to reduced turnout given legitimately-held health fears; by how much is the real concern. That is not a risk any responsible Prime Minister should take, especially when two later dates, October 17 and November 21 are available.

National’s East Coast candidate Tania Tapsell (Photo: Alex Braae)

ĀteaAugust 16, 2020

The youngest in the room: Meet National’s 28-year-old East Coast candidate

Alex Braae

Staff Writer

National’s East Coast candidate Tania Tapsell (Photo: Alex Braae)

When the National Party talks about renewal, their East Coast candidate Tania Tapsell (Te Arawa) is a potent symbol. Alex Braae went to Whakatāne to find out what drives her to push so hard for political success.

She was the youngest person in the room by far. Admittedly, that room was the Whakatāne Bridge Club on Monday morning, but Tania Tapsell still stood out. As the National Party’s 28-year-old candidate for the East Coast electorate, Tapsell is living proof of the party trying to renew itself. She’s been unusually successful in local government – a contrast to the many candidates who’ve come through the parliamentary staffer machine – and is unafraid of speaking her mind, even if her stump speech sticks close to the party line. She’s also Māori and a woman, in a party that has lately been criticised for lacking both.

Her speech at the Bridge Club was bright and cheerful, underpinned by both sheer enthusiasm and a more subtle sharpness. Without notes, she went for about 20 minutes, without ever once getting lost or heading down an inconclusive tangent. She had the feel for public speaking of someone who had been prepared for leadership roles from a very young age. Almost as a joke, I asked if she’d been head girl at her high school.

“No, I dropped out of high school,” she said. “I left school when I was 16, the one size fits all system just didn’t work for me, so I was very independent. But I just had this huge drive through the challenges I faced and saw my community facing, I developed a huge drive to serve my community.” She also left home at the same time, but at 16, she was too young to get benefits so worked two jobs instead.

But dropping out of high school didn’t mean dropping out of society for Tapsell. She still participated in youth council and was the youth MP for Rotorua’s Todd McClay after having joined the National Party as a teenager. Instead of being in school, she did business studies and had a stint at Deloitte doing business consulting before being elected as a Rotorua District Councillor at 21 years old. By then, she’d resolved to become a politician “because I believe it doesn’t have to be as hard as it is for people to get ahead”.

Tania Tapsell putting up hoardings on the East Coast (Photo: Facebook/Tania Tapsell)

As far as life stories go, it’s pretty much the perfect narrative for the National Party worldview. While some on the outside look at the party as being a force for maintaining and entrenching hierarchy and privilege, those inside the party see it as a force for aspiration and ambition. It’s why concepts like “a hand up, not a hand-out” are such potent political lines for National supporters.

But can it really be a party for everyone? The event she was speaking at was a monthly meeting of the Whakatāne National Party called Blue Mondays, started by popular but retiring MP Anne Tolley. For Blue Mondays, MPs or prominent candidates are asked to come up and say a few words about their particular portfolio areas and interests, such as Botany candidate Christopher Luxon and MP Nicola Willis.

Held just before new cases of community transmission were announced, those who turned up to this month’s event had come from various professional backgrounds: former teachers, community service workers, and businesspeople. By and large, though, it was a room full of retirees and predominantly Pākehā. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does make it harder to claim the party is being rejuvenated.

Blue Monday at the Whakatāne Bridge Club (Photo: Alex Braae)

Being the youngest in the room is a fairly common experience for Tapsell, who said it’s part of what drives her. “A big reason why I’ve wanted to get into this space is to let other young professionals and young families know that this is a space for us.”

Surely that’s particularly a problem within National? “We’ve got a lot of long-serving members in the National Party,” she conceded, which is a good way of not saying old. “But we’ve got this fresh, exciting new wave of experienced young candidates that are coming through the party. We’ve got a very active Young Nats group, and that’s something I want to help grow in the regions as well.”

If anyone can make that happen outside of the big university cities, it’s probably Tapsell. She’s immensely popular at the local government level to the point where a mayoral candidate last year described her as a “pied piper” for younger voters. He didn’t mean it as a compliment, but she said they now get on OK around the council table.

Former speaker of the house Sir Peter Tapsell (Photo: Getty Images)

For those who recognise the Tapsell name, her allegiance to the National Party might come as a surprise. After all, her great uncle was Sir Peter Tapsell, who served five terms as Labour’s MP for Eastern Māori, an electorate that no longer exists. However, Tapsell said her family has always been supportive of her political allegiances, saying it was “clear to them that I leaned to the right”.

“Even as a child, I couldn’t understand how some of Labour’s policies were so hurtful to rural communities. And I’ve always really loved how National is about limited government, and supporting individuals and families to get ahead.”

There’s pretty much only one way Tapsell can make it to Wellington, and that’ll be as an electorate MP. She’s fine with that, casting her low list ranking (64) as a combination of both National Party processes around new candidates, and a sign of confidence from the party that she can actually win the seat. When I point out to her that a balanced National caucus would probably have more people like her in it, she points to incumbent health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti, and new candidate Dale Stephens, who is Te Rarawa.

“Māori are well represented, but it’s my personal opinion that you should be placed somewhere on merit,” said Tapsell, with a slightly wry suggestion that she’d expect a better list ranking if she becomes an MP.

But to become an MP, she faces an extremely formidable opponent. In the last election, Labour’s Kiri Allan was 5,000 votes short of incumbent Anne Tolley. But after a solid term in parliament, Allan has already started campaigning hard to win the vacated seat. On the same day Tapsell was at the Whakatāne Bridge Club, Allan was in Kawerau – an industrial town that’s now been plastered with her signs and is always hearty for Labour. The East Coast electorate might include a lot of rural areas (farmers were well represented at Blue Monday) but it also includes towns like Murapara, Ōpōtiki and Kawerau where National traditionally fairs less well. And of course, many of Labour’s voters in these towns are also on the Māori roll.

She’s also up against the fact that the campaign has now been suspended due to a change in alert levels. With just a few weeks to go before voting begins, Tapsell said all activities had been put on hold “until we can guarantee it’s safe”. In the meantime, her existing profile will have to do a lot of heavy lifting, along with the hundreds of hoardings her campaign team have put up across the electorate.

If Tapsell wins, she wants a role in either local government or the environment. And if she loses, there’s always the possibility of a mayoral run which she said some had asked her to consider in 2019.

The last question I ask is perhaps the only one that throws her: if it weren’t for politics, what would she be doing right now?

“Having a life,” she jokes, before a long pause. “I don’t know, I’ve always been interested in serving the community, so whatever way or role I could do that, yeah.” Then, after another pause: “I’ve never thought about anything else.”

Alex Braae’s travel to Matamata was made possible thanks to the support of Jucy, who have given him a Cabana van to use for the election campaign, and Z Energy, who gifted him a full tank of gas via Sharetank.