OPINION
Thomas Coughlan - Herald deputy political editor
The winner tonight is Chris Hipkins, although his performance was perhaps a matter of taste.
Hipkins fought like he had nothing to lose, and little wonder, the polls suggest he doesn’t.
Election 2023: Who won the final leaders’ debate? The verdicts on Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon
Subscribe to listen
Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen.
Already a subscriber? Sign in here
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
Opinion by Thomas Coughlan,Claire Trevett,Audrey Young,Shayne Currie
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
He took a massive risk. After Christopher Luxon (quite rightly) pointed out that Hipkins had lost five ministers since becoming Prime Minister, Hipkins retorted with the devastating line: “None of my MPs beat people up with a bed leg” - a reference to the Sam Uffindell scandal.
It wasn’t to everyone’s taste - and in fact, by “going there” Hipkins may have put some off - but for those with similar tastes to mine, it was devastating.
Make a beeline for the Beehive
Get weekly politics headlines with commentary from our political experts straight to your inbox.By signing up for this newsletter, you agree to NZME’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hipkins was more across his brief, interjecting with apposite points in segments on trade and welfare, refusing to give an inch when Luxon tried to trash Labour’s record on trade, which Hipkins was right to defend. That record is quite strong. Areas where Labour’s record is weak are plentiful. Luxon didn’t spend enough time highlighting these.
Luxon had his moments. Reminding Hipkins that his likely coalition partners were every bit as unaligned as National’s, noting that Te Pāti Māori wants to eventually get rid of prisons, something newly “tough on crime” Labour is not keen on.
Hipkins possibly interrupted too much - a change from not interrupting enough in the first debate.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Jessica Mutch McKay deserves a medal, and perhaps a flak jacket, for her moderation. The rival leaders were in no mood to co-operate with her.
The other big winners of the night were the minor parties. A negatively-minded Hipkins and Luxon did a convincing job of explaining why neither Labour nor National deserves to be in government. It’s little wonder voters are looking elsewhere.
Winner: Chris Hipkins
Claire Trevett - Herald political editor
Cranky! The last debate of a campaign is always either a testy or a flat affair. This one landed at the far end of the testy spectrum.
The leaders are tired, there’s an edge of desperation.
Christopher Luxon has been an Energiser bunny through the campaign, but even he was looking tired. For him it seemed more a chore to get through than an attempt to sell his case.
Chris Hipkins is a man with nothing to lose at this point. He was gunning for the undecided voters, those tossing the coin between the two parties.
Hipkins landed the blows he wanted to, sometimes with excruciating effect. He honed in on Luxon’s areas of vulnerability. Those are the areas where voters are still sceptical about National: the questions around National’s tax cuts, the cuts it intends to make to pay for them and the question of trust in Luxon.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
“I think that shows your moral compass is entirely wrong,” he said at one point after talking about National’s switch to peg benefit increases to the CPI instead of wage increases, its overselling of its tax cuts offering, and tax incentives that will deliver to investor landlords.
He took it too far on one occasion. There was a lot of squabbling. There was Hipkins’ jaw-dropping “none of my MPs beat people up with a bed leg” reference to Sam Uffindell in a segment about caucus discipline after Luxon referenced the string of ministers Hipkins has had to dispense with.
Luxon’s goal was the same as it was for the first debate: to look like a prime minister. A bare-knuckle scrap would not have helped him while he is trying to persuade voters he can deal with both Act leader David Seymour and NZ First leader Winston Peters.
Luxon looked like the calmer leader – sometimes patronisingly so. He quoted Taylor Swift, “you need to calm down”, as Hipkins kept interrupting. Luxon wasn’t wrong – Hipkins went a bit overboard.
But it wasn’t all one-sided.
Luxon had kicked off by calling Labour’s campaign “negative and tacky” - he was throwing stones in a glass house, given his own campaign has focused on trashing Labour and its record.
But It ended, ironically, with a segment on how the leaders would unify New Zealand after a divisive campaign.
Jessica Mutch-McKay had the best line of the night, wondering whether Luxon would appoint a space minister: “Maybe Winston Peters? He could do a bit of a recce.”
Winner: Hipkins won the debate, but in doing so may have helped Luxon.
Audrey Young - Herald senior political correspondent
If the aim of the exercise was to look and sound prime ministerial, Luxon would have won it without question. If the aim was to focus on the weakest parts of the other’s policy plans, Hipkins won hands down.
Some viewers may have been shocked that National plans to save $2 billion in welfare benefits over four years by reducing the annual increases. It’s not a matter of he said/he said. It’s a fact. It will widen the gap between the poorest Kiwis and other households.
Luxon’s refusal to acknowledge any change made Hipkins’ blood boil. Comparing the reduction for beneficiaries to tax breaks for landlords, he said Luxon’s moral compass was entirely wrong.
He said it twice. Hipkins was really worked up. Luxon told him to calm down several times, once with reference to a Taylor Swift song. It wasn’t funny and Hipkins didn’t calm down.
He talked about a tax swindle twice. He talked about the $250 a week tax cut going to only 3000 households. National’s showpiece of the campaign has been turned into its most vulnerable policy and the debate reinforced that. Luxon barely mentioned it.
The moderator, Jessica Mutch McKay tried to inject a bit of levity into the event but it was late in the debate and too late in the campaign for that.
Winner: Chris Hipkins
Shayne Currie - NZME editor at large
The best-timed line of the night came from Chris Hipkins, privately, to Christopher Luxon as the National leader entered the studio at TVNZ, minutes before last night’s debate.
Normally it’s a convivial handshake, some mindless banter, fake smiles and please assume your position at the lectern.
But Hipkins whispered to Luxon as he shook his hand: “Are you going to answer any questions tonight?”
It was about the high point of the night and a line Hipkins returned to later in the debate.
Luxon, on the other hand, maintained his now consistent line of Hipkins running only a negative campaign.
Luxon showed little variety in his retorts, advising Hipkins to calm down about a dozen times, and letting him know he was “being really disrespectful” on a handful of other occasions.
Hipkins was faster on his feet in that respect but looked less than statesman-like on occasions.
Sure, it was a more combative debate than the showdown in the same room three weeks ago but it was boring.
While Luxon kept telling Hipkins to calm down, in truth they needed to spark up – as visionaries. By this stage of the campaign, of course, our two leaders are punch-drunk fighters waiting for the final bell.
Jessica Mutch McKay was assured and firm as moderator, but who on earth thought it was a good idea to talk sewage and water pipes in the fourth period of the third head-to-head debate of an election campaign?
In terms of substance and style, there was nothing fresh, nothing new and certainly nothing surprising unless you count Luxon’s revelation that he spends just $60 a week on groceries in Wellington.
Now that’s discipline in a cost-of-living crisis.
Hipkins had the edge, debating wise, but Luxon looked more prime ministerial for this debate.
Are we there yet?
Winner: Christopher Luxon
