Labour's incumbent Finance Minister Grant Robertson has been downgraded by big business leaders, while National's finance spokeswoman Nicola Willis has risen in their ranks.
Video / Alyse Wright
National Leader Chris Luxon has the edge (so far) when it comes to election campaign performances, according to CEOs.
On Monday, we asked respondents to the full Mood of the Boardroom survey how they rated the campaign performances of the two leaders vying to be New Zealand’s next prime minister.
This came after Labour’s Chris Hipkins and National’s Chris Luxon faced off in the 1News live Leaders’ Debate. It also came after more than three weeks of solid electioneering by both leaders following their respective party campaign launches in Auckland on September 2 and 3.
The CEOs had a clear view.
They rated Luxon’s performance at 3.36/5 on a scale of 1-5 where 1 equals “not impressive” and 5 equals “very impressive”. Hipkins was rated at 2.5/5.
“Christopher Luxon projected as a credible future leader with directed passion, energy and drive, which was important, given his relative newness into politics,” said Deloitte chair Thomas Pippos.
The TVNZ debate dominated comments.
Said an export leader, “I thought it was a reasonably good and informed debate, with Chris Luxon having the edge. I know the media didn’t think there was enough blood, but surely that is not the point.”
Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon in the first Leaders' Debate. Photo / TVNZ
Others were critical.
“The debate was a non-event because both candidates only went through their well-rehearsed talking points without engaging in an actual argument.
“The shallow nature of the questions and the unwillingness of the presenter to allow a proper debate did not help, either,” said a business-related organisation head. “Besides, the amount of agreement between the two leaders was worrying. The country needs a turnaround, and judging by the relatively harmonious ‘debate’, such a turnaround is not on offer at this election.”
This view was mirrored by Precinct Properties’ Craig Stobo: “Their beige performance confirms why their combined share of the vote is deteriorating.
“Neither want to address what voters variously want to hear, so votes are shifting to the periphery.
“What tax increases or expenditure cuts are you going to make to balance the Budget and reign in gross public debt? Who will pay for the climate change transition? How are you going to manage co-governance expectations?
“And, how are you going to heal divisions caused by Labour’s Covid job mandates?”
“Luxon did much better than I was expecting. The issue is a lot of people are now disinterested and I suspect the non-vote will be a decider,” said Skellerup Holding David Mair.
Jarden’s co-head of investment banking, Silvana Schenone said neither leader impressed.
“Hipkins seems to be focused on minutiae and Luxon was surprisingly under-prepared for some critical questions.”
Third parties
Others noted it has been a lacklustre, banal campaign for both major parties and leaders with the only really thoughtful policies and performances coming from third party leaders.
“Luxon is better than Chippie, but neither is overwhelmingly impressive. But it isn’t just about them. I think David Seymour makes the most sense, and the party he leads has the most sensible policies even if he isn’t made for TV,” said a gas industry chief.
Final words on the debate
“Almost unwatchable. Even for a politics nerd,” — professional firm boss; “Boring and uninspiring from both leaders,” — Mainfreight’s Don Braid.
A company chair: “Hipkins seems to be the awkward one. Without a podium he is a fish out of water. Might be better suited to student politics again. Not sure who the other man is other than the handmade cheese roll eater.”
